Phillip Johnson interview (Communiqué, Spring 1999)
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Spring 1999, Issue No. 6
Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
by Jeff Lawrence
http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
---
David Buckna
"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially
sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to
believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the
priesthood...So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural
authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that
authority--that's why they're so vicious towards critics."
-- Phillip Johnson, on the PBS documentary _In the Beginning: The Creationist
Controversy_ [airdate: May 1995]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
>Communiqué: A Quarterly Journal
>Spring 1999, Issue No. 6
>
>Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
>by Jeff Lawrence
>http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
What does lawyer Johnson know about science?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
z@z
> by Jeff Lawrence
> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
the whole interview:
Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers.
And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
and so on.
The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
"Ask the important questions and examine the answers to
those questions to see whether they are true or not, instead
of getting off on these confusing sidetracks that has prevented
the truth from coming out."
"And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue. So, I want to ask questions
like:
Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
assigned to it?
Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before?
Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
designer?
The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing, which is practically nothing. That's
why the whole field is so crazy."
"It's just amazing to me when I got into this field that the scientists
couldn't see that or couldn't see the importance of it. I found it
hard to believe that otherwise intelligent scientists really believed
that the micro-evolutionary examples of mutations that could make
a bacteria resistant to antibiotics or something really are the same
thing as the creative process that created bacteria and human
beings in the first place, but they do seem to believe it."
"It was an enormous shock to me getting into this to see, in fact,
how bad the reasoning really is, how illogical the whole scientific
field of evolution is and how resistant the scientists are to having
any logic brought into it."
"Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
based on materialism."
"So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
and then live with the consequences of that."
"One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
of causation.
We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
of physical causes.
Or, perhaps it's psychological causes in early childhood as in
Freudianism, perhaps it's training as in behaviorism, perhaps it's
chemical reactions as in modern neuroscientific theories of the
brain, but these are all responsible for human action. And
whenever you go in this way, you end up in madness very quickly.
You actually cannot explain human behavior on the basis of
cause and effect relations like that."
"The physicalists, you know, scientific materialists tell us you can't
have thought determining action because we don't know of any
way in which a spiritual or immaterial thing can influence the
physical world. Only physical things can influence the physical
world.
Well, this to me just shows that your philosophy is totally inadequate,
because there is nothing we are more directly conscious of than
first thinking of something and then acting to bring it about. That's
simply true as a matter of our basic direct experience. Any theory
that doesn't account for it is a defective theory."
"If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
or whatever."
"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
"Galileo got in trouble with the professoriate of his day because
he was a cocky, arrogant theorizer who treated everybody else
with contempt. He was brilliant, of course, and he was right about
important things, but people who've studied the history of the
Galileo episodes don't find it too surprising that he eventually got
into trouble."
"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
"But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
the dominant scientific materialism."
"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
and the scientists came from all over and every message was
"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
Wolfgang
(An old (mono-, pan, a-)theist, atheist only in the spirit of
Ludwig Feuerbach)
Del
> > Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
> > by Jeff Lawrence
> > http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>
> Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> the whole interview:
>
> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
z@z
>
> Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
deceptive.
Wolfgang
Joe Zawadowski
> >> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
> >
> > Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
> > Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> > dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> > one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>
> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> deceptive.
>
> Wolfgang
How's this last paragraph for an example?
"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
and the scientists came from all over and every message was
"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
Please substantiate that "every message" given by the "scientists" (who of
course remain nameless) in 1959 indicated the views attributed to them
above. I think you will find that your hero Johnson is beating a strawman
to death.
Joseph Zawadowski, a.a.#249
--
"Freedom begins between the ears."
"I'd rather kill a man then a snake. Not because I Iove snakes or hate men. It is a question, rather, of proportion."
Edward Abbey, author of "The Monkey Wrench Gang"
Del
> >> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
> >
> > Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
> > Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> > dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> > one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>
> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> deceptive.
>
"Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
information that weren't there before?"
Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
changes. But for natural selection to work there must
be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
selection in the following:
"Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
to a false depiction of the scientific view.
I also find this interesting:
"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
Compare
"In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
-- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
-----
This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
Johnson's claims on their face such as:
"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers."
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue."
It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
motives derive from something other than a desire to
"explore the difference between good science and bad
science." Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
Mark Borok
> > Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
> > by Jeff Lawrence
> > http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>
> Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> the whole interview:
>
> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
Okay.
>
>
> And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
> that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
> to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
> whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
> and so on.
Who is this "we"? Every Creationist I've heard on the subject so far has
brought up the bible, age of the earth, etc. There seem to be some who are
actually doing research, but these aren't the ones who are "talking" as
Johnson is.
>
> The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
> whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
> as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
> just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
> put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
This is totally grabled. There is no connection between the first and
second sentences.
>
> "And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
> think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
> determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
> always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
> gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
Those are the terms in which Creationists choose to argue (see above.) Why
blame the press?
>
> Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
> assigned to it?
It has a modifying power, but maybe that's just my nitpicking.
>
> Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> before?
>
> Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
> designer?
Since natural selection is being used by researchers to design new drugs
and software programs, then yes.
>
> "Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
> legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
> learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
> that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
> particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
> in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
> what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
> based on materialism."
He keeps harping on how materialism in science is a bad thing, but I've
never heard of any justification of how non-materialistic (spiritual?)
thinking can improve the scientific method. What advantages are there in
positing the existence of a creator deity when you're doing science? It's
useless.
>
> "So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
> and then live with the consequences of that."
>
> "One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
> unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
> human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
> of causation.
>
> We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
> into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
> crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
> of physical causes.
Okay, then, what's an objective way to determine if someone is insane? Or
should insane criminals be punished in the same way as sane ones?
>
> "The physicalists, you know, scientific materialists tell us you can't
> have thought determining action because we don't know of any
> way in which a spiritual or immaterial thing can influence the
> physical world. Only physical things can influence the physical
> world.
>
> Well, this to me just shows that your philosophy is totally inadequate,
> because there is nothing we are more directly conscious of than
> first thinking of something and then acting to bring it about. That's
> simply true as a matter of our basic direct experience. Any theory
> that doesn't account for it is a defective theory."
Who has said this and when? It's a self contradictory statement. A
scientific MATERIALIST by definition believes that everything can be
explained without invoking the spiritual or immaterial. Therefore, thought
must be part of the material world.
>
> "If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
> chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
> have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
> This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
> reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
> or whatever."
WHAT???? First of all, our hyper-developed brains give us a clear
evolutionary advantage. Even if scientific theories didn't have value in
themselves, they could be accounted for as a by-product of our high
intelligence. Of course, those theories lead to technological innovations,
which increase our survivability as a species. The last sentence shows a
very selective understanding of how natural selection works.
>
>
> "But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
> be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
> may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
> I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
> the dominant scientific materialism."
Interesting that he defends multiculturalism. In any case, it has no
bearing on scientific methods.
--Mark
> Wolfgang
> (An old (mono-, pan, a-)theist, atheist only in the spirit of
> Ludwig Feuerbach)
>
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
--
Mark Borok
"Restless Graphics"
Animation and multimedia design
http://www.mindspring.com/~mborok
Remove "spamless" from email address to respond
z@z
>>>> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
>>>
>>> Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
>>> Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
>>> dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
>>> one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>>
>> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
>> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
>> deceptive.
>
> "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> information that weren't there before?"
>
> Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
> vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
> he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
> selection in the following:
>
> "Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
> natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
> can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
> who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
> and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
> causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
> control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
>
> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
I do not understand well your criticism. It cannot be denied
that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
Where does this information come from according to you? At
least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
of this information by (random mutation and) selection. Do you
think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
statements" everywhere. (Furthermore the criticized
sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
> I also find this interesting:
>
> "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>
> Compare
>
> "In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
> incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
> natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
> unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
> Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
> that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
> and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
> explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
> to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
> does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
> -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
What's wrong with these two excerpts? Both seem completely sound
to me, although I myself would not write something very similar to the
second. And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
> This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
> Johnson's claims on their face such as:
>
> "We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
> to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
> mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
> of human software designers and engineers."
>
>"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
> science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
> because that just confuses the issue."
>
> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> motives derive from something other than a desire to
> "explore the difference between good science and bad
> science."
I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
of Johnson's previous quotes.
I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
no alternative theory was conceivable because of the
limitation of our human mind. Nevertheless I have a strong
desire to "explore the difference between good science and
bad science."
> Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
> Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
It would rather express it in this way: "Either his basic
convictions are right or reductionist Darwinism."
In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
therefore you should retract it.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Del
Yes, I think you do.
It cannot be denied
> that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
> beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
> Where does this information come from according to you? At
> least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> of this information by (random mutation and) selection.
You demonstrate here that you understand what I am
saying with your parenthetical addition (above) to what
Johnson said.
> Do you think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
Let's leave out your parenthetical:
"At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
of this information by selection."
Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
scientist working in an evolution-related field who
explains the emergence of this information "by
selection."
Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
"explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before."
Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
>
> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
supported by anything he says in the interview. In
fact, what he says belies your interpretation:
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue. So, I want to ask questions
like:
Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
assigned to it?
Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before?
Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
designer?
The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing, which is practically nothing. That's
why the whole field is so crazy."
----- End Quote -----
Note: "what natural selection can and can't do..."
"what natural selection is supposed to be able to
do..."
Clearly a straw man.
"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
1996]
"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
there is genetic variation in the population to begin
with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
there were no dark moths, the population could not have
evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
genetic variation.
> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
> statements" everywhere.
Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
conclusion as you are here.
> (Furthermore the criticized
> sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
"And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing..."
> > I also find this interesting:
> >
> > "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> > misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> > Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> > They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> > promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> > been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
> >
> > Compare
> >
> > "In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
> > incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
> > natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
> > unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
> > Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
> > that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
> > and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
> > explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
> > to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
> > does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
> > -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
>
> What's wrong with these two excerpts?
Both seem completely sound
> to me,
I'm sure they do. Others may have less problem seeing
the dichotomy, however.
> although I myself would not write something very similar to the
> second.
> And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
How so?
> > This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
> > Johnson's claims on their face such as:
> >
> > "We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
> > to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
> > mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
> > of human software designers and engineers."
> >
> >"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
> > science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
> > because that just confuses the issue."
> >
> > It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> > incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> > motives derive from something other than a desire to
> > "explore the difference between good science and bad
> > science."
>
> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
> of Johnson's previous quotes.
You say that as if you thought I expected a different
reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
free objection.
I'm not.
>
> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
> no alternative theory was conceivable
Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
theory, cite it).
> because of the
> limitation of our human mind.
But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
Nevertheless I have a strong
> desire to "explore the difference between good science and
> bad science."
That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
know something about science. Tell me: what is the
simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
>
> > Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
> > Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
>
> It would rather express it in this way: "Either his basic
> convictions are right or reductionist Darwinism."
"reductionist Darwinism" is a theistic anti-
evolutionist phrase, not a scientific one. My analysis
is correct: He rejects modern evolution, and he does so
for theistic reasons. He prefers to play this down, and
indeed, it bears not at all on his _arguments_. However
when he offers no argument, i.e.: no reason or evidence
in support of his claims, just the claims themselves as
he did in his interview, then he is asking us to take
his word for these things. When he does, then his
personal biases become germane.
And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
scientific view means he must give up the most profound
thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
> therefore you should retract it.
On the contrary, I have shown just that. All you've
offered in rebuttal is name-calling and blatant
assertion. Therefore I think you should admit he was
being dishonest as you promised.
z@z
>>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
>>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
>>
>> I do not understand well your criticism.
>
> Yes, I think you do.
Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
in the article.
The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
the rest. Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
is possible. That reproduction is a concept based on finality
is another inconsistency of modern Darwinism.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the
> emergence of this information by selection."
>
> Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> explains the emergence of this information "by
> selection."
Also in my statement 'selection' represents at least
'selection, mutation and reproduction'.
So it is you who erroneously knocked down a strawman!
However, the fact that you suppose that Johnson tries
to refute Darwinism by such absurd means, clearly shows
that you do not at all understand him. Johnson is a good
logician and epistemologist and he would never make
intentionally or unintentionally such a catastrophic error.
> Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
> He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
> "explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
> which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
> that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
> amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> before."
>
> Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
> saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
If follows by logical reasoning that 'natural selection', i.e.
the principles of Darwinism are responsible for the addition
of vast amounts of genetic information.
>> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
>> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
>
> You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
> Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
> judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
> supported by anything he says in the interview. ...
I understand Johnson more or less correctly, I think,
but you apparently not.
> Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> genetic variation.
There is, however another aspect: the creative power must
be attributed rather to selection than to mutation. Random
mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
(the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
the information needed for a human body.
>> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
>> statements" everywhere.
>
> Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
> you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
> holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
> attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
> merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
> conclusion as you are here.
I'm sorry, it was only a misunderstanding of you!
But there is a general rule: one always should choose
the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
is written by a person one does not agree with!
>> (Furthermore the criticized sentence is formulated
>> not as a claim but as a question.)
>
> Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
My remark would make sense if Johnson was imprecise in
the corresponding statements, as I assumed because of
your criticism. But he is very precise (I've checked it now),
so my remark in parentheses is superfluous.
Now I see your dichotomy:
"The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist
propaganda."
"No, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism
goes much deeper."
You equate Darwinism with science. However, one must
not confuse science itself with the concrete scientific
theories or hypotheses such as Darwinism.
...
>>>
>>> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
>>> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
>>> motives derive from something other than a desire to
>>> "explore the difference between good science and bad
>>> science."
>>
>> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
>> of Johnson's previous quotes.
>
> You say that as if you thought I expected a different
> reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
> task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
> over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
> do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
> assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
> free objection.
If I write somewhere: "It is clear from ... that ..." and someone
doubts my statement, then I'm able (or at least I believe that
I'm able) to explain and to defend my statement. It was
you who challenged me with this statement:
"If you promise to admit he was being dishonest, and not
to go off on a tangent, I'll point out one or two of his
consciously deceptive statements."
Anyway, I have done some work on the whole evolution issue:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
>> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
>> no alternative theory was conceivable
>
> Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
> theory, cite it).
How can you believe that no alternative to Darwinism is
conceivable? See my work for instance. Darwinism does
not equal science!
>> because of the limitation of our human mind.
>
> But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
> regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
What's 'modern evolution'? I do not reject the fact of a
continuous evolution or creation, but I reject the prevailing
theories, because they are based on many erroneous and
even absurd premises.
>> Nevertheless I have a strong desire to "explore the
>> difference between good science and bad science."
>
> That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
> know something about science. Tell me: what is the
> simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
> that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
> even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
What's the importance of this definition? I'm interested
in nature, life and evolution, but not in arbitrary definitions.
To know many orthodox definitions has absolutely nothing
to do with exploring the difference between good science
and bad science.
> And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
> scientific view means he must give up the most profound
> thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
The bias you recognize in Johnson's opinions is primarily a
consequence of your own biased view on Johnson. Please
try to understand that the 'scientific view itself' is not identical
with the currently prevailing scientific world view. Such an
identity has never existed in history, why should it exist now?
>> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
>> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
>> therefore you should retract it.
>
> On the contrary, I have shown just that. All you've
> offered in rebuttal is name-calling and blatant
> assertion. Therefore I think you should admit he was
> being dishonest as you promised.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Del
> Hello Del!
> > > >> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> > > >> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> > > >> deceptive.
> > > >
> > > > "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> > > > information that weren't there before?"
> > > >
> > > > Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
> > > > vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> > > > Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> > > > changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> > > > be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> > > > favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> > > > example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> > > > reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> > > > these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> > > > knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
> > > > he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
> > > > selection in the following:
> > > >
> > > > "Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
> > > > natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
> > > > can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
> > > > who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
> > > > and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
> > > > causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
> > > > control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
> >>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
> >>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
> >>
> >> I do not understand well your criticism.
> >
> > Yes, I think you do.
>
> Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
> different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
> You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
>
> But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
> ( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
> and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
> Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
> in the article.
>
> The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
> synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
>
> Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
> selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
> the rest.
Wrong. Sorry, but you do not, nor does any other
theistic anti-evolutionist, define terms for science.
This excuse doesn't wash anyway.
> Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
> is possible.
Straw man.
That reproduction is a concept based on finality
> is another inconsistency of modern Darwinism.
> see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
Red herring.
> > "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the
> > emergence of this information by selection."
> >
> > Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> > scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> > explains the emergence of this information "by
> > selection."
You ignore this and do so for reasons that are obvious.
> Also in my statement 'selection' represents at least
> 'selection, mutation and reproduction'.
>
> So it is you who erroneously knocked down a strawman!
How clever. Leave out the preceding text, without
noting the deletion, then accuse me of committing a
fallacy. Let's put it back in, in context:
> > > I do not understand well your criticism.
> >
> > Yes, I think you do.
> >
> >
> > It cannot be denied
> > > that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
> > > beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
> > > Where does this information come from according to you? At
> > > least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> > > of this information by (random mutation and) selection.
> >
> > You demonstrate here that you understand what I am
> > saying with your parenthetical addition (above) to what
> > Johnson said.
> >
> >
> > > Do you think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
> >
> > Let's leave out your parenthetical:
> >
> > "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> > of this information by selection."
> >
> > Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> > scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> > explains the emergence of this information "by
> > selection."
----- End replaced text -----
Quite a bit different meaning now, isn't it?
>
> However, the fact that you suppose that Johnson tries
> to refute Darwinism by such absurd means, clearly shows
> that you do not at all understand him.
Oh I see. I am not allowed to evaluate his words
because I don't "understand him" and you do. You are
right because you say you are.
> Johnson is a good
> logician and epistemologist and he would never make
> intentionally or unintentionally such a catastrophic error.
This blatant assertion is your defense? I note the
similarity between this and defending Biblical errors:
it just can't be an error because God wouldn't make an
error. Sorry, but I don't believe (in) either one of
your gods.
> > Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
> > He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
> > "explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
> > which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
> > that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
> > amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> > before."
> >
> > Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
> > saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
>
> If follows by logical reasoning that 'natural selection', i.e.
> the principles of Darwinism are responsible for the addition
> of vast amounts of genetic information.
Begging the question. You can't provide an in-context
quote of a scientist in the field saying what Johnson
insinuates. So you offer this blatant assertion of
yours, which is nothing but a re-statement of your
premise (begging the question) in lieu of actual
argument or actual evidence.
> >> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
> >> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
> >
> > You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
> > Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
> > judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
> > supported by anything he says in the interview. ...
>
> I understand Johnson more or less correctly, I think,
> but you apparently not.
Now there is a good "argument:" "I'm right, you're
wrong," improperly appealing to your own "authority"
for the claim. No reasons, no evidence deemed
necessary. Geeze, how many fallacies have you now
committed so far?
Regardless, the evidence of your double standards --
your prejudice in favor of whatever your demi-god
Johnson says -- stands, unrefuted.
> > Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> > genetic variation.
>
> There is, however another aspect: the creative power must
> be attributed rather to selection than to mutation.
Sorry. I can't take 'MUST' as an argument. Especially
not from one who admits he does not even know the
definition of evolution. I also can't help but notice
you once again omit my text that offers evidence for my
conclusion -- and you do so without notice. Was it
because it refuted your blatant assertion, above? Here
it is, again, beginning with a quote from Johnson from
the interview that you posted:
----- Begin Replaced Text -----
> > Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> > genetic variation.
----- End Replaced Text -----
Random
> mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
> (the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
> the information needed for a human body.
Need I point out that, once again, you offer nothing
but blatant assertion? If you wish to contradict
science you will need to offer more than your own
personal "authority" to do so. Much more, as it turns
out, given that you are ignorant of what science
actually says. I'll bet you haven't read a single book
on the subject that wasn't an anti-evolutionist rant --
like Johnson's -- full of lies, misinformation, and
refuted claims -- again like Johnson's -- have you? If
you have, name them. If you have not you better ignore
this point: too embarrassing to you.
>
>
> >> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
> >> statements" everywhere.
> >
> > Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
> > you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
> > holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
> > attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
> > merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
> > conclusion as you are here.
>
> I'm sorry, it was only a misunderstanding of you!
> But there is a general rule: one always should choose
> the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
> is written by a person one does not agree with!
Whether applied to Johnson or myself, "most coherent
interpretation" apparently means to you: "whatever the
most favorable interpretation to z@z's position is,
whether it is actually supported by the text or not."
> >> (Furthermore the criticized sentence is formulated
> >> not as a claim but as a question.)
> >
> > Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
>
> My remark would make sense if Johnson was imprecise in
> the corresponding statements,
Which must be why you deleted my in-context quote of
his (which I replaced, above,) that was the smoking-gun
evidence of his deception.
as I assumed because of
> your criticism. But he is very precise (I've checked it now),
> so my remark in parentheses is superfluous.
Oh yes, "very precise." From a review of Darwin on
Trial:
"Sometimes Darwin on Trial uses 'Darwinism' to mean
evolution by natural selection, sometimes to mean what
scientists call the 'synthetic theory of evolution'
(the union of genetic theory with natural selection
theory), sometimes to mean gradual evolution, and
sometimes 'Darwinism' means evolution itself. Sometimes
'evolution' is used as a purely scientific idea, and
other times it is confused with evolutionism, a
naturalistic ideology that excludes the possibility of
divine intervention. Just as science is not equivalent
to philosophical naturalism, so evolution does not
equal evolutionism." -- DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Executive Director, NCSE
No, you equivocate the meaning of Darwinism, as Johnson
does. I don't find the term useful, you do. Ironic,
too, since it seems pretty clear you don't know what it
means from a scientific perspective, and or you think
you have the right to define it in terms convenient to
your anti-evolutionism.
However, one must
> not confuse science itself with the concrete scientific
> theories or hypotheses such as Darwinism.
A sentence rife with unstated and unique assumptions,
assumptions which amount to claims about the nature of
more than a few things, including science. You
apparently see no reason why you should have to qualify
any of them, let alone show your qualifications for
making them.
> >>> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> >>> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> >>> motives derive from something other than a desire to
> >>> "explore the difference between good science and bad
> >>> science."
> >>
> >> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
> >> of Johnson's previous quotes.
> >
> > You say that as if you thought I expected a different
> > reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
> > task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
> > over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
> > do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
> > assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
> > free objection.
>
> If I write somewhere: "It is clear from ... that ..." and someone
> doubts my statement, then I'm able (or at least I believe that
> I'm able) to explain and to defend my statement.
Then defend YOUR assessment "I don't think that your
conclusion is a logical consequence of Johnson's
previous quotes." Odd, that you didn't see any reason
to do so here and now, after what you said, above!
The misconception you are laboring under is that I must
go beyond successfully arguing my point. That I must
ALSO force you to admit that I have. I'm telling you I
do not. (Trust me on this)
As I have pointed out in the above, over and over, you
have not offered ANYTHING in the way of rebuttal --
just assertions of the type: "I don't think that your
conclusion is a logical consequence..."
That is not rebuttal. That is gainsaying. Gainsaying is
not argument, so I assume you have no argument to
offer. Therefore my argument stands, unrefuted.
It was
> you who challenged me with this statement:
>
> "If you promise to admit he was being dishonest, and not
> to go off on a tangent, I'll point out one or two of his
> consciously deceptive statements."
And I made my case, remember? That text of mine, above,
whole blocks of which you selectively removed without
notice? Does that ring a bell?
> Anyway, I have done some work on the whole evolution issue:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
> >> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
> >> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
> >> no alternative theory was conceivable
> >
> > Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
> > theory, cite it).
>
> How can you believe that no alternative to Darwinism is
> conceivable?
I assume you mean by "Darwinism" the current state of
the science of evolution in it's multiplicity of forms,
given that you did not choose to offer any definition
yourself. That's what I am talking about.
Now share with us your alternative theory.
> See my work for instance.
Give me a reason to believe it won't be a complete
waste of time. Show me, for instance, you know the
first thing about evolution. You haven't yet.
> Darwinism does not equal science!
Define your unique meaning for the word "Darwinism," so
we don't have to take your word for this, as you expect
us to do at virtually every juncture.
> >> because of the limitation of our human mind.
> >
> > But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
> > regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
>
> What's 'modern evolution'?
"Modern scientists accept that evolution occurred, but
differ over the relative importance of natural
selection and other mechanisms, over whether the
pattern of evolution is smooth and gradual or jerky and
punctuated, over which characteristics link modern
groups, and so on." -- Eugenie C. Scott ibid.
I do not reject the fact of a
> continuous evolution or creation, but I reject the prevailing
> theories, because they are based on many erroneous and
> even absurd premises.
Well if you say so it must be true!
> >> Nevertheless I have a strong desire to "explore the
> >> difference between good science and bad science."
> >
> > That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
> > know something about science. Tell me: what is the
> > simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
> > that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
> > even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
>
> What's the importance of this definition? I'm interested
> in nature, life and evolution, but not in arbitrary definitions.
Ah. So you don't even know what the definition is. I
see. Furthermore you are not interested in knowing.
> To know many orthodox definitions has absolutely nothing
> to do with exploring the difference between good science
> and bad science.
I rather think it does. Not knowing what you are in
opposition to is a serious defect. That you don't care
to know is a fatal flaw. Sorry, your demand for
credibility, revealed in you expecting us to take your
word for every proclamation you make (which are many)
is rejected -- for cause.
> > And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
> > scientific view means he must give up the most profound
> > thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
>
> The bias you recognize in Johnson's opinions is primarily a
> consequence of your own biased view on Johnson.
More blatant assertion.
z@z
Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
Yours posts, however, remind me even much stronger of
Richard than the posts of mcoon remind me of Ian Musgrave.
Such a combination of erudition, good style, naivety, dogmatism,
arrogance and intentional (or instinctive) misrepresentation is
very exceptional.
Because I think that it is much more probable you are Richard
than you are not, this post is based on the 'Del equals Richard
hypothesis'.
Do you remember our discussion on entropy:
I wrote:
"Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove a
temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin."
You answered:
"What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
the math.
As far as I can see, you are a talker and have no acquaintance with
doing. So prove me wrong: how do you know your statement here is
true? Why should anyone believe it?"
I answered:
I hope that our dabate will show you that it is 'dangerous' to defend an
inconsistent view such as modern science. Because of its inconsistent
basis, logically correct conclusions can lead to strange claims. The
most extreme case of such a strange conclusion seems to me the
following passage of your last email (or should it be a joke?):
>> Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove
>> a temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin.
> What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
> the math.
> As far as I can see, you are a talker and have no acquaintance
> with doing. So prove me wrong: how do you know your statement
> here is true? Why should anyone believe it?
You answered:
I AM STILL AWAITING AN ANSWER FOR THIS:
"Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove
a temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin."
What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
the math.
Now back to you, Del. The following extract is representative for
our whole debate:
>> Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
>> different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
>> You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
>>
>> But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
>> ( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
>> and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
>> Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
>> in the article.
>>
>> The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
>> synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
>
> No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
> talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
>
>>
>> Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
>> selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
>> the rest.
>
> Wrong. Sorry, but you do not, nor does any other
> theistic anti-evolutionist, define terms for science.
> This excuse doesn't wash anyway.
>
>
>> Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
>> is possible.
>
> Straw man.
Look for instance:
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.html
especially:
Figure 2: The Process of Natural Selection
And even if Johnson's use of 'natural selection' were uncommon,
you would have no right to criticize Johnson's LOGIC based on an
interpretation of 'natural selection' which is not his.
I don't want to apply your method which consists in defending
one's own view by increasing the length of the posts (maybe in the
hope people will not read them carefully).
You really should take to heart what I have written in my previous
post:
"But there is a general rule: one always should choose
the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
is written by a person one does not agree with!"
I'm sorry for my aggressive tone. I do not like to attack anyone's
personal authority, but there are cases where I feel obliged to do so.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Adam Noel Harris
:Hello Richard (C. Carrier)!
:
:Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
:pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
:an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
:
:If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
Actually, "we" are all just one poster. "We" are faking multiple
personalities and email addresses just to make you look bad. "We" are
being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants the HIV myth to
be perpetuated. You are seen as a great threat.
-Adam "Ian Richard Bud Del" Musgrave-Harris
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
z@z
> z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> :Hello Richard (C. Carrier)!
> :
> :Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
> :pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
> :an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
> :
> :If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
"please forgive me" is a quote from a post of mcoon. Unfortunately
after having installed today a new version of my email program, I
have lost all old posts (apart from my own).
> Actually, "we" are all just one poster. "We" are faking multiple
> personalities and email addresses just to make you look bad. "We" are
> being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants the HIV myth to
> be perpetuated. You are seen as a great threat.
I know that, but I'm funded, too. And our organization is more
careful not to make statements which can be proven wrong,
because we are interested more in truth than in scientific power.
> -Adam "Ian Richard Bud Del" Musgrave-Harris
> --
> Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
> PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Wolfgang
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
>
> "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> information that weren't there before?"
>
> vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> knows that science doesn't say this.
Well I note your addition of the word "beneficial" but
besides that I think you might be a bit too hasty here.
While it is true that Natural Selection as casually
observed is a mechanism that removes diversity from the
gene pool it is also noted that genetic diversity is
an advantage to populations facing and unpredictable
future as there are more potential avenues of adaptation
available. It therefore seems possible that selective
pressures over time have favored replication modalities
with greater propensity to add new genetic material that
wasn't there before.
Dave Greene
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
> >>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
> W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection.
>
> WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
>
> EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
> EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
> EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
> EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
> EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
> EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
> EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
> EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
> EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
> EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
> EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
> EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
>
> Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
> doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
> made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
> could not account for certain biological information, and I
> asked for his substantiation of that claim. Eric's interposed
> commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
> establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection account
for the biological information of abiogenesis?
Ed. Stoebenau
<snip Johnson quotes>
Here are yet some more Johnson quotes, which should give more than
sufficient reason to realize that he doesn't know what he is talking
about.
*****
"Guided evolution isn't evolution at all." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet
Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Evolution is a theory to do creating without God." Phillip Johnson,
on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Darwinian evolution is not a matter of scientific investigation."
Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"If there is no god, then... in the beginning were the particles [so]
there has to be random changes, ... and a designing force.... They
ignore all the vast amount of evidence which contradict [evolution.]"
Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Let's first establish that the present scientific regime wants to get
God out of the picture, regardless of the evidence." Phillip Johnson,
on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"It's clear... that when you look at the fossil record as a whole,
it's completely against Darwinism." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet
Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"The reality is that Darwinism is built on [a] dogmatic adherence to
materialism." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America"
7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"My experience speaking and debating on this topic at universities has
taught me that scientists, and professors in general, are often
confused about evolution. They may know a lot of details, but they
don't understand the basics. The professors typically think that
evolution from molecule to man is a single process that can be
illustrated by dog breeding or finch-beak variations, that fossil
evidence confirms the Darwinian process of step-by-step change, that
monkeys can type _Hamlet_ if they are aided by a mechanism akin to
natural selection, and that science isn't saying anything about
religion when it says we were created by a purposeless material
process." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p11
"Many ordinary people are also confused about these subjects, of
course, but they do tend to grasp one big truth that the professional
intellectuals usually seem incapable of seeing. The people suspect
that what is being presented to them as 'scientific fact' consists
largely of an ideology that goes far beyond the scientific evidence."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p11
"_Naturalism_ and _materialism_ mean essentially the same thing for
present purposes.... [T]here is no difference between naturalism and
materialism." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p15-16, fn
"Arguments defending Darwinism often seem to beg the question because
they assume the point at issue, which is whether the scientific
evidence really does support the theory.
Here's a typical example:
_Question_: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving
molecules?
_Answer_: Don't reject a scientific theory just because you have a
religious prejudice.
The answer assumes the point in dispute, which is whether the evidence
for the chemical evolution of life is so overwhelming that only a
prejudiced person would be skeptical of it." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p42
"Let's consider two possibilities. One is that 91 percent of the
public consists of ignorant people who ignore the evidence and just
believe what they want to believe. On that assumption, democracy is a
farce. We are like children who think we can set fires and not be
burned. In that case we ought to be ruled by a scientific elite, who
will protect us from the consequences of our folly. The other
possibility is that the evolutionary naturalists are the ones who
believe what they want to believe, and they are likewise the ones who
are less than assiduous in exposing themselves to contrary evidence."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p48
"I am amused by self-styled 'skeptics,' who invariably seem able to
believe the wildest nonsense if it supports Darwinism." Phillip
Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p74, fn (On analogies to natural
selection)
"The gospel of John begins with the memorable statement that 'In the
beginning was the Word.' That is exactly how we would describe the
creation of a literary work, or a computer program, or a building. In
the beginning was the concept and the working out of that concept in
the mind of the author or designer. [....] The Word (information) is
not reducible to matter, and even precedes matter. If only matter
existed in the beginning, then the first verse of the Gospel of John
-- and the worldview of the Bible -- is false." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p71
"Truth (with a capital _T_) is truth as God knows it. When God is no
longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human
opinions. (There can also be no sin, and consciousness of sin is that
built-in moral compass Rorty rejects as illusory.) We can know
something about what is useful for getting whatever we happen to want,
but false beliefs have often been extremely useful." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p89
"To say that a statement is false is to concede that it could
conceivably be true. This can be dangerous. Focusing the mind of an
unbeliever on the question whether Christ's claims are true has often
had unanticipated consequences." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating
Darwinism_, p101
"We might say that the point of Darwinism is to refute the otherwise
compelling teaching of Romans 1:20, which is that God's eternal power
and deity have always been evident from the things that were created."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p113
*****
And one big whopper:
"In early 1997 I participated in an internet debate with Brown
University biology professor Kenneth Miller in connection with the PBS
NOVA television show _The Ultimate Journey_. [....] Professor Miller
did not defend the program but tried to change the subject to talk
about hominid fossils and other stock arguments for Darwinism."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p123-124
"NOVA Online asked two leading spokesmen in the evolution/creation
debate to discuss the question, "How did we get here?" The
participants have agreed to keep their letters to less than 500 words
and have been given equal time to write them. The debate will
continue into December with a new letter every 3-4 days. It should be
noted that neither Miller nor Johnson were involved in the production
of NOVA's Odyssey of Life." From "How Did We Get Here? (A Cyber
Debate)," http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/.
*****
I think these two quotes make Johnson's dishonesty very obvious.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
John Wilkins
What biological information, exactly? If life began as a hypercycle or
catalytically closed cycle of reactants, selection will increase the
efficiency and complexity of those reactions (even in the absence of a
"gene" molecule). What is the information? Sure, there's structural
increase in complexity, but surely that's not a problem?
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Matt Silberstein
daveg...@my-dejanews.com:
[snip]
>
>I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection account
>for the biological information of abiogenesis?
>
It does not. Mutation and Natural Selection are processes that happen
to living organisms. Abiogenesis is the process by which life appeared
from non-life.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
Wesley R. Elsberry
<daveg...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>> Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>> >>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
WRE> [...]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
WRE> Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
WRE> doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
WRE> made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
WRE> could not account for certain biological information, and I
WRE> asked for his substantiation of that claim. Eric's interposed
WRE> commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
WRE> establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
DG>I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection
DG>account for the biological information of abiogenesis?
Well, the discussion is about normal biological issues and
information, not abiogenesis. But maybe if Dave were to show
how "mutation and natural selection" could be properly said to
apply to pre-biotic chemistry, and also show that there is
information content to be analyzed in pre-biotic chemistry,
then the question could be addressed as a separate topic.
Beyond that, I notice the lack of specific references that would
substantiate Wolfgang's claim.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In a hotel room that costs as much as my apartment"-O97s
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> Buckna quoted PJ as saying:
>
> "So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural
>
> Great cultural authority? That must be why there are so few creationists
> around anymore and why the general public is so sympathetic to the concept
> of evolution . . . get real . . .
Perhaps it is you who should get real. Modern twentieth century science has
often changed the story of the origin of modern man according to the current
cultural mythos in vogue at the time.
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
>"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
>variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
>1996]
A couple of points should be made here:
1.) Mutation is not the only process which offers up
genetic variation for selection.
2.) Mutation also creates genetic variation that is
invisible to selection.
>"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
>there is genetic variation in the population to begin
>with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
>'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
>there were no dark moths, the population could not have
>evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
>continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
>increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
>and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
>and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
>to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
Well there had to be a first dark moth then? One should
not assume that evolution is hogtied to pre-existant
phenotypic expressions.
>Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
>genetic variation.
Natural selection can also act to PRESERVE genetic variation.
Case in point: Hybrids are often more robust organisms.
Goyra
<1999040814...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
Let me introduce here an analogy showing
how information is added to the genome by natural
selection.
The solution of the Rubik's cube is
information, and a solved cube can be said to
store this information (especially if we
assume an electronic cube with a memory).
Take 100,000 such cubes, and have them
randomly twisted by monkeys. Pile them all up.
Have you created or moved information around?
No.
Now, select the one cube that is solved
and put it in a box marked "solved cubes look
like this". NOW you have created information.
How did you do it? The choosing of the one specific
cube was the action that inserted information into
the system.
With this analogy, it becomes clear that
information IS added to the genome - information
about how to build a working animal. And this
information is added at the moment when natural
selection weeds out the unsuitable animals. So
the processes of fighting, hunting, eating etc
are the sources of information.
These processes are driven by energy that
is given to us free from the Sun. Free energy is
mathematically capable of countering (local)
entropy and creating information. So there is no problem.
Goyra
z@z
You have invited me to substantiate my claim:
"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
explained by random mutation and selection."
I'll do it in a new thread "Darwinism smashed by probability
arguments" which I intend to start in the near future.
I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
of usable energy.
Here some quotes from what I have written until now:
"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random emergence
of a system (e.g. a living organism) is unrealistically low, the system
is taken apart to smaller and smaller sub-systems until random
emergence gets realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for
the whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities for
the emergence of all systems from their respective sub-systems.
Reductionist causal laws do not explain why sub-systems which
are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
disappearing after having appeared by chance."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot be
denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by this
advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist causal
laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt to explain
evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units) to spread is
based on finality. A reductionist causal explanation must derive
what seems to us a tendency to spread from physical and
chemical laws."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less scientific
than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution without final laws
of nature, are either not aware of the finality used in their
explanations, or they extremely overestimate the creativity of
pure chance. To be consistent, they would also have to explain
scientific and cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking
or copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles have
always been effective in evolution is much more consistent and
elegant than the hypothesis that such principles appeared only as
a result of organisms having emerged themselves by pure chance."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot
be stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
during the transformation from the original DNA information to
the final read only information. There should rather be an
information loss.
Some scientists assume that there is such an information gain
in the case of protein folding. They are right insofar as the
information corresponding to the protein behaviour is much
larger than the information corresponding to the amino acid
sequence. I, however, would prefer as a last resort the
hypothesis 'God' to such a mysterious information increase
violating common sense and logical reasoning.
Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least several
bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern in the
DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability that
behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather low. For
macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell types
and other structures must evolve at the same time together with
behaviour patterns. Because it is generally accepted that negative
mutations are more likely than positive ones, macroevolution
would be impossible."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
> EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
> EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
> EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
> EVS>required.
>
> Measurable quantities?
>
> [Quote]
>
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
>
> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
>
<http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembsk
i.html>]
Can I assume that "1 f M f N" should be "1 <= M <= N".
In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense (at least
out of context). Unfortunately the online article uses a character
set incompatible with my browser.
Why do you appreciate this quote?
Cheers
Wolfgang
Wesley R. Elsberry
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
W>You have invited me to substantiate my claim:
W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection."
I did so by this response to the above:
Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
be referenced where? Be specific.
W>I'll do it in a new thread "Darwinism smashed by probability
W>arguments" which I intend to start in the near future.
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. Wolfgang doesn't know how many times
I've heard promises like this that never come to fruition.
W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
W>of usable energy.
Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
original discussion was about *biological* information, not
pre-biotic chemistry.
W>Here some quotes from what I have written until now:
Will they have anything to do with showing that random
mutation and selection are incapable of adding biological
information?
W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
final assertion is just plain wrong.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
thread?
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
W>an information loss.
Wolfgang might be surprised at what I can doubt. That will
be pretty much anything Wolfgang has to say that touches
upon biology, apparently. If Wolfgang told me that the sky
was blue, I'd open the window to check it.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>Some scientists assume that there is such an information
W>gain in the case of protein folding. They are right insofar
W>as the information corresponding to the protein behaviour is
W>much larger than the information corresponding to the amino
W>acid sequence. I, however, would prefer as a last resort the
W>hypothesis 'God' to such a mysterious information increase
W>violating common sense and logical reasoning.
This appears to be a simple digression away from the topic.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
competition, but the above should put him in the running.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
OK, so Wolfgang's quotes don't exactly help him out with his
assertion. Did anyone expect something different? Notice
that Wolfgang provides no references to evidence at all, as
was requested originally.
EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
EVS>required.
WRE> Measurable quantities?
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
W>Can I assume that "1 f M f N" should be "1 <= M <= N".
That looks reasonable.
W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
biological information.
I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
conspicuous by their absence.
Of course, there are changes in biological information content
whose most natural explanation is simply mutation (if
discussing an individual as compared to a parent, for example)
or genetic drift (when discussing a population). I've talked
before about increase in information due to polyploid events
in orchids. See
<http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424416762>. I'm
assuming that Wolfgang is trying to get at non-banal support
of his claim, though, and will provide as his examples
observed *adaptive* change. If, though, that's all that
Wolfgang meant by his claim, then I will be happy to stipulate
that mutation and genetic drift explain biological information
increases that mutation and natural selection do not.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"I've got a timebomb\In my mind mom\I hear it ticking but I don't know why"-O97
z@z
> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> be referenced where? Be specific.
Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
> W>of usable energy.
>
> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
> pre-biotic chemistry.
But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
the emergence of biological information. There must be
reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
arbitrary. Also the immense information of the first self-
replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
> W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
> W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
> W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
> W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
> W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
> W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
> W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
> W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
> W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
> W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
> W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
>
> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
> final assertion is just plain wrong.
Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
purposefulness and so on).
Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
again after having appeared by chance.
> W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
> W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
> W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
> W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
> W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
> W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
> W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
> W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>
> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
> W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
> W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
> W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
> W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
> W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
> W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
> W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
> W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
> W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
> W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
> W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
> W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>
> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
> thread?
But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
other alternative theories.)
Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism. Do you
know one single non-living thing undergoing reproduction,
mutation and selection. Computer simulations are not
convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
replicating machines.
> W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
> W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
> W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
> W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
> W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
> W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
> W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
> W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
> W>an information loss.
> W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
> W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
> W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
> W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
> W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
> W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
> W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
> W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
> W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
> W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
>
> Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
> fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
> competition, but the above should put him in the running.
You are bluffing here, so it's very probable that you bluff
regularly.
Please try to explain at least in principle my logical fallacies!
> WRE> [Quote]
>
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
>
> WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
>
>
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/De
mbski.html>]
> W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
> W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
> W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
>
> W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
>
> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
> biological information.
Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
can add information. My specific argument is based on the
fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
more probable than an information loss and that the principles
neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
in the long term.
The quote you cited from "a major figure in the ID hierarchy"
clearly shows that you don't understand well what you write
about. Even after having read some paragraphs before and
after the quote, it's difficult for me to figure out a context where
this paragraph could make sense, but it certainly does not make
sense in our discussion.
> I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
> conspicuous by their absence.
Read my work on evolution on the internet. There you will
find enough logical arguments which support my claim. But I
suppose you read only scriptures having received the official
approval of orthodoxy.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Matt Silberstein
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
>> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
>> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
>> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>> be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
Here is a hint: when your logic and reasoning lead you to a conclusion
that contradicts observation you should probably take a second look at
the logic and reasoning.
>> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
>> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
>> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
>> W>of usable energy.
>>
>> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
>> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
>> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
>> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
>the emergence of biological information. There must be
>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
Mutation implies both reproduction and inheritance.
>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
>arbitrary.
Lets see. Abiogenesis means the emergence of life from non-life.
Evolution means the change in life over time. Sounds like a rather
clear distinction. Yes, I suppose we could use different terms for
these processes, but so what?
> Also the immense information of the first self-
>replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
>prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
>
However, it is not requisite for the description and explanation for
the changes that occurred between that first cell and the first H.s.
>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
>children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
Not only do we not have to take that for granted, I am not sure it
means anything.
[snip]
>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
>purposefulness and so on).
>
Not in any absolute or a priori sense. It does state that we can
explain certain aspect and then explains them.
>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
>
What in the world is a "logical fact"?
>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
>disappearing after having appeared by chance."
Where is that a quote from? It seems so odd. What does it mean for a
sub-system to reproduce itself? And the reason for something to
continue verses "disappear" is rather neatly explained by Natural
Selection and/or Drift.
> But at the same
>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
>again after having appeared by chance.
>
Why?
[snip]
>
>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
Not at all. Not only does Neo-Darwinism (or Darwinism or any
evolutionary biology) not care about the origin of the first
reproductive system but none of science says it happens by "pure
chance". It happens because events are strongly constrained by
physical laws. If Kauffman is right then given a rich enough set of
interactions and a system far from equilibrium you get life as the
expected result, not as a surprising one.
> Do you
>know one single non-living thing undergoing reproduction,
>mutation and selection.
Well it all depends on how you define life.
> Computer simulations are not
>convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
>replicating machines.
>
Why machines and not computer programs?
[snip]
Tim Ikeda
w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com says...
[...]
> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
> conspicuous by their absence.
I saw that Wolfgang (z@z....)responded:...
[...]
Z> Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
Z> some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
I don't think Wesley meant that Wolfgang had to find a specific
reference in a literature. Certainly a logical/mathematical
argument would work just as well.... provided, of course, that
Wolfgang can put one together and present it. I haven't seen that
happen yet.
> Of course, there are changes in biological information content
> whose most natural explanation is simply mutation (if
> discussing an individual as compared to a parent, for example)
> or genetic drift (when discussing a population). I've talked
> before about increase in information due to polyploid events
> in orchids. See
> <http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424416762>.
[...]
See also:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
speculate about what is and isn't possible. The trouble with
logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Bonz
message <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net> :
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
>> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
>> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
>> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>> be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
>> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
>> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
>> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
>> W>of usable energy.
>>
>> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
>> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
>> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
>> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
>the emergence of biological information. There must be
>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism.
No, they are based on chemistry.
>If you
>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
>arbitrary.
No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
> Also the immense information of the first self-
>replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
>prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
>children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
>> W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
>> W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
>> W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
>> W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
>> W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
>> W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
>> W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
>> W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
>> W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
>> W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
>> W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
>>
>> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
>> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
>> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
>> final assertion is just plain wrong.
>
>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
>purposefulness and so on).
>
>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
so on
>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
>again after having appeared by chance.
Huh? Where is your support for this?
>
>> W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
>> W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
>> W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
>> W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
>> W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
>> W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
>> W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
>> W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
>> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>>
>> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
>
>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
Ah. "Nuts just like me"
>
>> W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
>> W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
>> W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
>> W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
>> W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
>> W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
>> W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
>> W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
>> W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
>> W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
>> W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
>> W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
>> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>>
>> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
>> thread?
>
>But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
>Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
>basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
>used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
>other alternative theories.)
They are? Can you support this?
>
>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
Wrong.
Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
Stephen R Gould
> Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
> > W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
> > W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> > W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
> > Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> > be referenced where? Be specific.
>
> Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
> some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
what appears to be a logical argument may merely be fallacious. Example:
someone with limited reasoning power and some knowledge of maths - the
epistemology is irrelevant here - would find it logical that one cannot
devise a set of three dice A, B, and C such that when comparing rolls, A
will on average roll a higher number than B, B a higher number than C, and C
a higher number than A. It may appear logical, but it's also wrong.
<snip>
> But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
> the emergence of biological information. There must be
> reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
> on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
> do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
> The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
> arbitrary. Also the immense information of the first self-
> replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
> prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
>
> Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
> granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
> overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
> children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
> In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
> artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
The environment itself may be considered as having indefinitely large
supplies of information. Selection can sometimes be viewed as a net transfer
of information from the environment to the genes. End of story.
S.
<rest snipped>
Mark D. Kluge
>Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
>outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
>the whole interview:
>
>Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
>
>"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
>to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
>mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
>of human software designers and engineers.
Johnson concentrates upon the irrelevant. Science scarcely notices whether
material processes are or are not unguided or purposeless. It's just that
guidance and purpose are not what science can or does investigate. It's a
fair question to ask whether material mechanisms can really do certain
things, but irrelevant that those certain things are beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers.
>And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
>that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
>to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
>whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
>and so on.
One of the most important and difficult aspects of science is to learn to
ask the right questions. The right questions are those which have not yet
been answered, but are reasonably likely to be answerable in the near
term. One is not allowed to arbitrarily select one's main question and
ignore related issues. Rather, one must be guided by related questions in
solving a "main" question.
By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
not like is pure sophistry.
>The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
>whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
>as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
>just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
>put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
What is meant by "evolution has occurred" is rather more than Johnson
pretends.
>"Ask the important questions and examine the answers to
>those questions to see whether they are true or not, instead
>of getting off on these confusing sidetracks that has prevented
>the truth from coming out."
In other words, instead of considering those "confusing sidetracks" that
Johnson can't understand, consider only what Johnson considers important.
>"And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
>think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
>determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
>always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
>gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
Indeed. and the Young-earth-creationist argument can always be properly
phrased in those terms. It is an argument of a peculiar interpretation of
the Bible against nearly the whole of science. (Whole branches of modern
science, astronomy, geology, would be inconceivable within the YEC
framework. That is why, as a scientific matter, Phil Johnson is right
here. The scientific argument about young-earth creationism is indeed over
before it starts.
And that is something that Johnson should not be afraid of, but should
build upon. YEC is scientifically garbage. Fine. Johnson and other
students of Intelligent Design should examine straightforwardly the
consequences for the Intelligent Design Hypothesis of the demise of
YECism. Instead of playing for an untenable political alliance with YEC's,
Johnson should embrace what is known about the age of the earth and derive
what consequences can be derived from it.
>"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
>science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
>because that just confuses the issue.
That is what scientists have done for centuries. You don't see scientists
bringing the Bible into science. What the Bible says is irrelevant to
science. As far as science is concerned the Bible may be, and is, ignored.
It is the creationists and to some extent the Intelligent-Design theorists
who are bringing the Bible into the scientific discussion. I laud Johnson
in his efforts to correct his coreligionists and co-intelligent-design
theorists.
> So, I want to ask questions like:
>Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
>assigned to it?
A fair question. What is Johnson's research program for answering it?
>Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
>before?
A poorly-worded question. In what sense is Johnson referring to
"information?" Does he mean "information" in the Shannon
information-theory sense, or does he have some vague notion of "meaning"
in mind?
>Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
>designer?
An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
>The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
>to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
I wish it were that simple. Imagine a world in which just asking a
cleverly-misworded question opens up to scientific investigation vast
fields of inquiry!
>"It's just amazing to me when I got into this field that the scientists
>couldn't see that or couldn't see the importance of it. I found it
>hard to believe that otherwise intelligent scientists really believed
>that the micro-evolutionary examples of mutations that could make
>a bacteria resistant to antibiotics or something really are the same
>thing as the creative process that created bacteria and human
>beings in the first place, but they do seem to believe it."
Then Johnson should take time to study to understand why it is that those
expert in the field think that the two mechanisms are similar. Instead
Johnson appeals to the ignorant masses to join him in his opinion on the
grounds that they can't understand what biologists think any better than
Johnson.
>"It was an enormous shock to me getting into this to see, in fact,
>how bad the reasoning really is, how illogical the whole scientific
>field of evolution is and how resistant the scientists are to having
>any logic brought into it."
I also find it hard to see why scientists, who know that the earth and
life on earth are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 years old, would
not want to put that knowledge off to the side in considering whether the
observed diversity of living things is due to evolution by means of
natural selection or intelligent design. Like Johnson I always try to
reach the most far-reaching conclusions with as little of the available
evidence as possible.
>"Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
>legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
>learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
>that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
>particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
>in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
>what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
>based on materialism."
And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
>"So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
>and then live with the consequences of that."
The evidence is that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years. Live with
the consequences of that for intelligent design, whatever they might be.
Confront them squarely, taking that important evidence into consideration.
>"One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
>unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
>human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
>of causation.
>We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
>into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
>crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
>of physical causes.
ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
a scientific determination.
>Or, perhaps it's psychological causes in early childhood as in
>Freudianism, perhaps it's training as in behaviorism, perhaps it's
>chemical reactions as in modern neuroscientific theories of the
>brain, but these are all responsible for human action. And
>whenever you go in this way, you end up in madness very quickly.
>You actually cannot explain human behavior on the basis of
>cause and effect relations like that."
And except for some extreme behaviorists, no one tries.
[rant deleted]
>"If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
>chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
>have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
>This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
>reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
>or whatever."
>"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment myth. The
Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century. Darwin flourished during
the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had little or no effect a century before
Darwin.
>"Galileo got in trouble with the professoriate of his day because
>he was a cocky, arrogant theorizer who treated everybody else
>with contempt. He was brilliant, of course, and he was right about
>important things, but people who've studied the history of the
>Galileo episodes don't find it too surprising that he eventually got
>into trouble."
Finally something we can agree upon. The Galileo episode is complex, and
not well explained by a simplistic science-church warfare.
>"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
>particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
>the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
>today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
>in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
An unsupported analogy.
>See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
>power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
>always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
>So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
>the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
>censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
>to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone be, since
there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The National
Academy of Science can't control all of them, except, possibly, in the
delusional world of Philip Johnson.
>"But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
>be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
>may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
>I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
>the dominant scientific materialism."
It's trivial that non-Western ways of thinking must be treated with
respect in a pluralistic world. That includes tribal beliefs, which might
be, in some sense, true. It is unlikely that any tribal beliefs are true
or useful in any scientific sense, though.
>"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
>Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
>the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
>and the scientists came from all over and every message was
>"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
>it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
>in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
>the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
There is no basis for Johnson's saying that evolution was widely claimed
to have defeated Christianity, let alone conquered all.
Well, that's the Best of Phil Johnson. Not much there.
Mkluge
z@z
I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem purposeful
to me to answer comprehensively your remarks:
> No, they are based on chemistry.
That's self-evident!
> No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
And life is when evolution starts. Before that is no life.
> Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
It is a fact that it has. Every organism needs a lot of information.
> Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
> I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
> Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
> have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
> so on
> Huh? Where is your support for this?
Sound reasoning.
> Ah. "Nuts just like me"
> They are? Can you support this?
> Wrong.
> Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
> baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
My ideas have a better and broader basis than neo-Darwinism.
That's all you have written. Not one single argument to justify your
statements. What do you intend with such an answer?
Cheers
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
(My theory is published there where it should be
at the beginning of the third millennium.)
z@z
[snip]
> See also:
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
>
> Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
> generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
> to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
> speculate about what is and isn't possible.
I do not deny the fact of a continuous evolution or creation
of life. I only deny the prevailing scientific explanation of this
fact. It is not necessary to explain me things I already know.
To speculate is also very important for scientific philosophical
progress.
> The trouble with
> logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
> Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
> and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
> a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
If I need more background about biology and biochemistry
than you might benefit even more from a little background
reading about philosophy, logics, and above all about
epistemology.
Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so
many side effects that finally the immune system gets
exhausted!
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Pim van Meurs
"z@z" wrote:
> Hello Bonz!
>
> I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem purposeful
> to me to answer comprehensively your remarks:
>
> > No, they are based on chemistry.
>
> That's self-evident!
>
> > No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
>
> And life is when evolution starts. Before that is no life.
>
Life can exist without evolution.
>
> > Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
>
> It is a fact that it has. Every organism needs a lot of information.
>
Do they ? And so what ?
>
> > Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
>
> > I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
>
> > Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
> > have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
> > so on
>
> > Huh? Where is your support for this?
>
> Sound reasoning.
>
So you admit there is no real support for this after all.
>
> > Ah. "Nuts just like me"
>
> > They are? Can you support this?
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
> > baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
>
> My ideas have a better and broader basis than neo-Darwinism.
Nice assertion but somewhat meaningless. Care to try again ?
Tim Ikeda
In article <7eqbgr$pbr$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z...@z.lol.li says...
> Hello Tim Ikeda!
>
> [snip]
>
>> See also:
>> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
>>
>> Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
>> generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
>> to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
>> speculate about what is and isn't possible.
>
> I do not deny the fact of a continuous evolution or creation
> of life. I only deny the prevailing scientific explanation of this
> fact. It is not necessary to explain me things I already know.
The explanation for the examples described are gene duplication
and selection. Both of these processes have been observed
operating independently and in tandem to increase "information"
in organisms.
> To speculate is also very important for scientific philosophical
> progress.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with speculation. One can always speculate
that "standard-mechanism-X + unknown-mechanism-Y" are behind an
event. But this has little relevance unless one can distinguish
between events caused by "mechanism-X" and those caused by
"mechanisms-X + Y".
One can determine this positively, by demonstrating the existence
of mechanism-Y, or negatively, by demonstrating that mechanism-X
is not sufficient. Positive support is more often preferred over
negative support. That is because it is often very, very difficult
to conclusively demonstrate the insufficiency of mechanism-X;
particularly when all the possible outcomes involving mechanism-X
cannot be sufficiently described.
>> The trouble with
>> logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
>> Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
>> and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
>> a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
>
> If I need more background about biology and biochemistry
> than you might benefit even more from a little background
> reading about philosophy, logics, and above all about
> epistemology.
What about my writing suggests that I haven't? I'm very
interested in these subjects as they apply to science.
I'm card-carrying doctor of philosophy.
Philosophy is fine, but the Devil is in the details...
> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
Actually, Wolfgang, I think the following comments (which you've
posted previously but never adequately defended except to repeat
them again), illustrate the problem I see in many of your posts.
> Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
> thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so many
> side effects that finally the immune system gets exhausted!
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
> If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
Let's take that passage apart to evaluate any claims...
Sentence #1
"Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless)"
"Generally" is not the same as never. It is a risky to assume that the
general case extends to specific cases. If we were to restrict ourselves
to generalities, we might conclude that viruses, DNA & RNA-based, are
harmless -- That's because viral specificity limits host range so that
most (99.99+%) of the viruses you encounter in nature will simply do
nothing to you (Likewise bacteria). Of course, run across a virus that
is specific for _you_ and you'll find where generalizations fail. For
example, feline leukemia viruses (FeLV), influenza viruses, & SIV are
all retroviruses that are not harmless in many of their hosts. Nor is
HIV, as far as we can tell. The comment, "retroviruses are generally
harmless" is irrelvant to particular cases.
Continued:
"with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
(~ 100's of mg range)
That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
HIV is no exception.
[Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
activity & etc.]
The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
drug cocktails should be used.
Continued:
"of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
are clear signs of immune system impairment.
As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
repeat what others have said before: Your point?
Continued:
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
"Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
less than 200/mL..."
The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
the trials.
[Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
-- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
Let's review where the comments stand:
RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
provided.
Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
individuals.
Second paragraph:
"If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
to pathogen is clearly missing something.
I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
"dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
nobody would ever know...
So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection."
WRE> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE> be referenced where? Be specific.
W>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
W>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
A logical argument also has things like premises and
conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it, or
provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
Nobody is stopping him.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"swarm stab and bite what we want is justice" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
W>of usable energy.
WRE> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
WRE> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
WRE> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
WRE> pre-biotic chemistry.
W>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
W>the emergence of biological information. There must be
W>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
W>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
W>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
Reproduction and inheritance are not finalistic at basis.
While finalism of various forms has been expressed in biology
before, such things as orthogenesis and arstogenesis are now
quite extinct. I can't help it if Wolfgang is confused by
reality.
As has been pointed out, the concepts of "mutation" and
"natural selection" are dependent upon both reproduction and
inheritance. This would indicate that Wolfgang has a certain
amount of confusion concerning very basic concepts in biology.
W>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
W>arbitrary.
The qualitative distinction between systems without mechanisms
of inheritance and systems with mechanisms of inheritance
seems pretty clear.
W>Also the immense information of the first self- replicating
W>proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a prerequisite
W>of the information needed for a human being.
If Wolfgang provides the information content of the first
protocell and its precursors for analysis, we'll be able to
see whether "cell fairies" are necessary for explanations
or not. But that wasn't what this thread was about. We can
go into that elsewhere. In this thread, what is at issue is
Wolfgang's claim that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
W>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
W>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
W>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
W>children who were born after successive mutation and
W>selection.
And this is relevant to proving that mutation and natural
selection cannot add biological information in what way?
W>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
W>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
[...]
Some of us disagree on the "artificiality" of the distinction.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"she told me it is merely a plutonic attachment" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
WRE> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
WRE> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
WRE> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
WRE> final assertion is just plain wrong.
W>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
W>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
W>purposefulness and so on).
And is thus comprised of applications of reductionist causal
laws, right?
W>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
W>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Really? Provide an illustrative instance for documentation,
then. If this claim is true, that should be a piece of cake.
W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
W>again after having appeared by chance.
If one takes
"Reductionist causal laws do not explain why sub-systems which are
useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of disappearing
after having appeared by chance."
to mean, "Reductionist causal laws do not explain how adaptive
subsystems become widespread in a population instead of
disappearing after their first instantiation via mutation or
recombination", then one can easily point to Fisher's 1930
"Genetical Basis of Natural Selection" for detailed
mathematical treatments of just how often we should *expect* a
new adaptive feature to be propagated in a population, and how
often we should expect it to simply disappear again. It is
precisely in that sense that I said that Wolfgang's original
statement was wrong.
Let me repeat Wolfgang's old assertion and his new text:
W>Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance.
W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
W>again after having appeared by chance.
Wolfgang's old assertion and the first of his new assertions
are inconsistent with each other. But Wolfgang is apparently
trying to assert that "neoDarwinism" is self-contradictory
with the juxtaposition of these two new assertions. IIRC,
Fisher's 1930 text shows the fact that the incorporation or
exclusion of a new mutation can be treated mathematically
under a Darwinian framework. The first new assertion isn't
about "claims"; the theoretical structure exists. If Wolfgang
wishes to dispute it, he is welcome to point out errors in
Fisher's math. Go ahead, Wolfgang, we'll wait... and
wait... and wait...
As for the second of Wolfgang's new assertions, I want to see
the documentation that the second assertion is an accurate
representation and not just another strawman buddy that
Wolfgang keeps around for company. So, Wolfgang is invited to
provide his references to show those "entailed" consequences.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot add
biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"The skies are filled with herds of shivering angels"-BOC
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
WRE> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
W>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
[...]
Ah. Wolfgang is one of the Emperor's tailors, I see.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"1277 express to heaven\Rumbles the steel like a dogfight" - BOC
John Wilkins
Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
|Bit.listserv.skeptic removed at moderator's request.
|
|In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
|>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
|
| W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
| W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
| W>explained by random mutation and selection."
|
|WRE> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
|WRE> be referenced where? Be specific.
|
|W>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
|W>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
|
|A logical argument also has things like premises and
|conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
|logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it, or
|provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
|Nobody is stopping him.
|
|[...]
|
Also, there seems to be this recurring notion that "information" in
whatever sense is intended here cannot be created nor destroyed - a
somewhat Platonic notion of information. We are all awaiting justification
of this based upon some work done - where and why would anyone think
information is conserved in this way. It's not merely a logical/formal
argument. The premises need support as well.
FWIW, I think information can be created and destroyed in purely physical
ways (one of which is NS and mutation) - why am I wrong? Also, I have some
knowledge of epistemology. On this topic, I recommend Dretske.
Dretske, Fred I. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Dretske, Fred I. 1988. Explaining behavior: reasons in a world of causes.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dretske, Fred I. 1995. Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
WRE> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
WRE> thread?
W>But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
W>Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
W>basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
W>used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
W>other alternative theories.)
This neatly avoids the *obvious* misrepresentation that
Wolfgang indulges in. Theorists explaining evolution do not
do so on the basis of "pure chance", as Wolfgang's text above
states. That pure chance cannot be avoided in quantum physics
does not mean that it is the sole means of explanation in
biology.
W>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
W>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
W>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
This doesn't appear to have any relevance to Wolfgang's claim
that mutation and natural selection cannot add biological
information.
W>Do you know one single non-living thing undergoing
W>reproduction, mutation and selection. Computer simulations
W>are not convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
W>replicating machines.
My ignorance of chemistry of self-replicating systems is
extensive. This doesn't mean, though, that mutation and
natural selection do not add biological information, which
is the point at issue in this thread.
Others find computer simulations to have more capacity
for persuasion than does Wolfgang.
[...]
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"boss sometimes i think that our friend mehitabel is a trifle too gay" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
W>an information loss.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
WRE> Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
WRE> fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
WRE> competition, but the above should put him in the running.
W>You are bluffing here, so it's very probable that you bluff
W>regularly.
Bluffing? Wolfgang thinks his paragraph is free of logical
blunders?
W>Please try to explain at least in principle my logical fallacies!
[...]
In principle? I take it that Wolfgang would like specific
indentification of the fallacies, then.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte!
This is not a logical error, but a misrepresentation of
reality. Four base pairs yield 256 different permutations of
nucleotide bases, which would be one byte. But DNA codes are
transcribed into proteins. Each codon, or three base pairs,
code for one amino acid out of twenty (in humans). That's
only 4.47 bits of information, not the 6 bits that would be
expected without reference to how DNA actually works.
W>Because at least several bytes would be necessary to code a
W>behaviour pattern in the DNA
There is no demonstration of such a length necessity. Appeal
to facts not in evidence. Logical error #1.
W>(think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!),
False analogy. Logical error #2.
W>the probability that behaviour patterns could evolve would
W>be rather low.
Non sequitur. Logical error #3.
W>For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns.
Misrepresentation. Macroevolution, in the form of speciation
events, has been observed to occur without these restrictions.
W>Because it is generally accepted that negative mutations
W>are more likely than positive ones, macroevolution would be
W>impossible."
[...]
Non sequitur. Logical error #4. See also the previous
comment.
Wolfgang doesn't know me very well if he thinks I bluff on
these matters. Wolfgang also has a very low opinion of the
cognitive capabilities of readers here if he thought these
problems were not fairly obvious to others.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Time marches on\Time stands still\Time on my hands\Time to kill"-WZ
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
WRE> biological information.
W>Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
W>vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
W>nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
W>can add information. My specific argument is based on the
W>fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
W>more probable than an information loss and that the principles
W>neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
W>in the long term.
Let's look at that "specific argument" again.
[Quote]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
[End Quote - Wolfgang,
<http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462581020>]
I don't see any qualifiers about time or anything else in
that claim. If Wolfgang is officially retracting his original
claim in order to make a less reality-challenged one, that
would be fine by me.
I doubt that Wolfgang can produce any more evidence for his
new claim than he has for his old, apparently abandoned, one.
And that would be: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.
W>The quote you cited from "a major figure in the ID hierarchy"
W>clearly shows that you don't understand well what you write
W>about. Even after having read some paragraphs before and
W>after the quote, it's difficult for me to figure out a context where
W>this paragraph could make sense, but it certainly does not make
W>sense in our discussion.
That quote was cited by me in response to *Eric*, not
Wolfgang. *Wolfgang* then asked about it. If Wolfgang wants
to see where it makes sense, he need only look back to
<http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=464061759> to find it.
It does make sense in this discussion, though, in that Dembski
is trying to quantify the amount of biological information
that can be said to be due to mutation and natural selection.
Wolfgang's original statement would indicate that the value
that Dembski should come up with would be zero or negative.
That is not the case. I can see how Wolfgang could wish that
the cited source did not exist.
WRE> I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
WRE> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
WRE> conspicuous by their absence.
W>Read my work on evolution on the internet.
It seems to have the same active disregard for evidence that
Wolfgang's posts here do.
W>There you will find enough logical arguments which support
W>my claim. But I suppose you read only scriptures having
W>received the official approval of orthodoxy.
Yeah. Right. Here's one of those *brilliant* logical
arguments mentioned above:
[Quote]
Look at the ontogenesis (computers do not grow)!
Look at the complexity of the immune system!
Look at the repair mecanisms at all levels!
Look at ...!
Look at the complexity of the human body!
Look at the complexity of our brain!
Look at the complexity of the eye!
Look at ...!
Look at the human powers of perception!
Look at the human learning capacity!
Look at the ability of language!
Look at ...!
Look at persons like W.A.Mozart!
Look at ...!
[End Quote - Wolfgang,
<http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html>]
Personally, I think the final "n" in Wolfgang's URL is
superfluous.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"When Sir Rastus Bear\Taught children how to play" - BOC
John Wilkins
Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
|Bit.listserv.skeptic removed at moderator's request.
|
|In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
|
|[...]
|
| W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
| W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
| W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
| W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
| W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
| W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
| W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
| W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
| W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
|
|WRE> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
|
|W>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
|
|[...]
|
|Ah. Wolfgang is one of the Emperor's tailors, I see.
|
|So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
|contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
|add biological information.
|
Perhaps he should read this:
Eigen, M. 1993. The origin of genetic information: viruses as models. Gene
135 (1-2):3747.
Abstract: A living entity can be described as a complex adaptive system
which differs from any, however complex, chemical structure by its
capability of functional self-organization based on the processing of
information. If one asks, where does this information come from and what
is its primary semantics, the answer is: information generates itself in
feedback loops via replication and selection, the objective being 'to be
or not to be'. This paper describes the theoretical framework of
information-generating systems and provides experimental clues for some
basic forms of genetic organization, such as molecular quasi-species,
hypercyclic and compartmentalized RNA-protein assemblies. The results are
primarily obtained with RNA viruses and virus-like systems. The
experiments are carried out with the help of automated,
computer-controlled bioreactors, called 'evolution machines', that may
form the basis of a new 'evolutionary biotechnology'.
Mark D. Kluge
<w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
> WRE> [Quote]
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
> WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
> WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
<snip>
>WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
>WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
>WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
>WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
>WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
>WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
>WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
>WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
>WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
>WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
>WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
>WRE> biological information.
I'm curious, Wesley, about what you think Dembski is trying to get at
here. From the examples he gave it appears that he's trying to consider
the quantity of information obtained by learning which M of N objects are
selected for, given that each selection is independent. Of course that is
obviously not the same as the change in genetic information. (It depends
upon the history, upon the actual numbers of offspring produced and
surviving, instead of being a function of genetic composition of the
population.)
But even worse, if M of N objects are selected, and each selection is
equiprobable and independent, then there are C(N,M) = N!/(M!(N-M)!)
equiprobable selections, so the formula for the (non-genetic) information
that Dembski wants is H = log_2(C(N,M)), and not log_2(N/M).
Do you agree with me on what Dembski is trying (unsuccessfully to do), or
am I missing something very profound from Dembski?
Mkluge
Wesley R. Elsberry
Mark D. Kluge <mkl...@wizard.net> wrote:
>On 12 Apr 1999 00:04:37 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry"
><w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
MDK><snip>
WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
WRE> biological information.
MDK>I'm curious, Wesley, about what you think Dembski is
MDK>trying to get at here.
Like I said above, Dembski's purpose is to find an upper limit
to the amount of information that can be said to be due to
mutation and natural selection on a per-generation basis.
MDK>From the examples he gave it appears that he's trying to
MDK>consider the quantity of information obtained by learning
MDK>which M of N objects are selected for, given that each
MDK>selection is independent. Of course that is obviously not
MDK>the same as the change in genetic information. (It depends
MDK>upon the history, upon the actual numbers of offspring
MDK>produced and surviving, instead of being a function of
MDK>genetic composition of the population.)
Yes. This is one of the points that Bill Jefferys brought up
at the 1997 NTSE conference.
MDK>But even worse, if M of N objects are selected, and each
MDK>selection is equiprobable and independent, then there are
MDK>C(N,M) = N!/(M!(N-M)!) equiprobable selections, so the
MDK>formula for the (non-genetic) information that Dembski
MDK>wants is H = log_2(C(N,M)), and not log_2(N/M).
Yes. I criticized the equation that Dembski came up with,
too, back in 1997.
MDK>Do you agree with me on what Dembski is trying
MDK>(unsuccessfully to do), or am I missing something very
MDK>profound from Dembski?
No, Mark, you are right on the ball. As I indicated above,
the exercise shows that Dembski believes biological
information is added by mutation and natural selection, but
Dembski's derivation of a quantification has problems.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Having her in my brain's like getting hit by a train\She's gonna kill me"-O97s
z@z
> >Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> >outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> >the whole interview:
> >>> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
> By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
> a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
> already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
> doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
> big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
> not like is pure sophistry.
For a short article it makes always sense to confine oneself to
specific areas. I think that's even necessary, don't you think so?
> > So, I want to ask questions like:
> >Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
> >designer?
>
> An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
> defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
> selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
> designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
"Poorer question" is undefined. The "creative power" of humans
cannot be denied. But humans are a product of nature. So, at
least in humans, nature shows that there is some form of "creative
power" which cannot be explained only by random changes
(errors in thinking, in copying data and similar happenings) and
selection.
Therefore it is your paragraph which seems to me little more than
a play on words.
> And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
> which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
> in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
Because of sound logical reasoning.
Similar cases, where evidence against a dogma is taken as evidence
for the dogma, are not exceptional in human history.
> >We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
> >into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
> >crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
> >of physical causes.
>
> ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
> insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
> want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
> a scientific determination.
Insanity is also a question of pychology and psychiatry.
> >"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> >misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> >Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> >They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> >promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> >been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>
> Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment
> myth. The Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century.
> Darwin flourished during the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had
> little or no effect a century before Darwin.
Whether this myth had existed before the nineteenth century is
not very important. The myth was used by Darwinists, and
therefore it flourished.
> Finally something we can agree upon. The Galileo episode is complex,
> and not well explained by a simplistic science-church warfare.
We agree all.
> >"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
> >particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
> >the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
> >today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
> >in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
>
> An unsupported analogy.
I would subscribe Johnson's statement. The College of Cardinals
of today would correspond to some kind of a Heathen College of
Galileo's day.
> >See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
> >power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
> >always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
> >So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
> >the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
> >censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
> >to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
>
> And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone
> be, since there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The
> National Academy of Science can't control all of them, except,
> possibly, in the delusional world of Philip Johnson.
Censorship has evolved too. It is much more sophisticated today
than it was at the times of Galilei. The immense quantity of scientific
output is a very good means to hide criticism of the prevailing belief
system.
Imagine: something is published, but nobody notices.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Mark D. Kluge
>Hi Mark D. Kluge!
>> >Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
>> >outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
>> >the whole interview:
>> >>> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>> By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
>> a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
>> already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
>> doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
>> big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
>> not like is pure sophistry.
>For a short article it makes always sense to confine oneself to
>specific areas. I think that's even necessary, don't you think so?
Johnson isn't evading the age issue just here. Throughout his work Johnson
systematically and deliberately avoids discussing the matter. Why? Because
it is too "controversial" among his admirers. Yet, age is a fundamental
issue. While it is indeed possible to omit certain issues from a synopsis,
it is not possible to omit them in the main. Where does Johnson treat the
issue of age with respect to Intelligent Design Theory? Where has he shown
that it doesn't matter?
>> > So, I want to ask questions like:
>> >Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
>> >designer?
>> An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
>> defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
>> selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
>> designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
>"Poorer question" is undefined. The "creative power" of humans
>cannot be denied.
Oh, I don't deny that human beings have creative power I just have no idea
how to quantify it. In fact, I don't even know how to order it. If George
writes a symphony and Fred paints a picture, I have no idea, and neither
has anyone else, of how to determine whether George's creative power >
Fred's creative power, or vice versa. And that's an easy case of comparing
he creative powers of two human beings. What are we to do when comparing
the creative power of a human being with the creative power of nature? It
just doesn't make sense.
>> And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
>> which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
>> in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
>Because of sound logical reasoning.
Sound logical reasoning is not enough. Sound logical reasoning deals only
with the formal aspects of reasoning. To be knowledgeable in a field one
must also know that field's material. To speak authoritatively about
biology one must study biology.
>Similar cases, where evidence against a dogma is taken as evidence
>for the dogma, are not exceptional in human history.
But it requires intimate familiarity with the material concerned with the
alleged dogma to determine which is the case. Johnson doesn't have that.
>> >We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
>> >into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
>> >crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
>> >of physical causes.
>> ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
>> insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
>> want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
>> a scientific determination.
>Insanity is also a question of pychology and psychiatry.
Oh really? Find a psychologist who writes professionally about insanity in
a context other than the law.
>> >"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>> >misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>> >Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>> >They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>> >promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>> >been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>> Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment
>> myth. The Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century.
>> Darwin flourished during the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had
>> little or no effect a century before Darwin.
>Whether this myth had existed before the nineteenth century is
>not very important. The myth was used by Darwinists, and
>therefore it flourished.
Right. And the fact that the myth that the Catholic Church hindered
science (see what they did to Galileo?) existed long before Protestant
Fundamentalism is not very important. The myth was used by Protestant
Fundamentalists and therefore it flourished.
Lots of people, for a variety of reasons, have used the Galileo myth. The
idea that there has been warfare between church and science has been
espoused by many, including, but not limited, to Darwinists. So where's
the connection between the myth and Darwinism? It was popular before
Darwinism, and remains popular after. What evidence is there that
Darwinists have spread the myth more virulently than others?
For a lawyer writing to complain about how others mishandle evidence,
Johnson exhibits singular indifference to his own evidence-handling.
>> >See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
>> >power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
>> >always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
>> >So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
>> >the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
>> >censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
>> >to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
>> And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone
>> be, since there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The
>> National Academy of Science can't control all of them, except,
>> possibly, in the delusional world of Philip Johnson.
>Censorship has evolved too. It is much more sophisticated today
>than it was at the times of Galilei. The immense quantity of scientific
>output is a very good means to hide criticism of the prevailing belief
>system.
I'm sorry that George Orwell didn't live to read about that one. "War is
Peace." "Freedom is slavery." "Ignorance is strength." "The ability to
publish a lot is censorship."
Mkluge
Del
> jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>
> >"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
> >variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
> >1996]
>
> A couple of points should be made here:
> 1.) Mutation is not the only process which offers up
> genetic variation for selection.
> 2.) Mutation also creates genetic variation that is
> invisible to selection.
Right.
>
> >"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
> >there is genetic variation in the population to begin
> >with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
> >'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
> >there were no dark moths, the population could not have
> >evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
> >continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
> >increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
> >and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
> >and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
> >to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
>
> Well there had to be a first dark moth then? One should
> not assume that evolution is hogtied to pre-existant
> phenotypic expressions.
For the purposes of this issue my quote would be out of
context. Preceding the paragraph I quoted from the FAQ,
was the following:
HOW DOES EVOLUTION WORK?
If evolution is a change in the gene pool; what causes
the gene pool to change? Several mechanisms can change
a gene pool, among them: natural selection, genetic
drift, gene flow, mutation and recombination. I will
discuss these in more detail later. It is important to
understand the difference between evolution and the
mechanisms that bring about this change.
----- End Quote -----
> >Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> >genetic variation.
>
> Natural selection can also act to PRESERVE genetic variation.
> Case in point: Hybrids are often more robust organisms.
>
> Dave Greene
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
z@z
[snip]
FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
(at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
HIV causes AIDS in humans.
Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
> Continued:
> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>
> (~ 100's of mg range)
> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
> HIV is no exception.
In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
to death.
There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
> activity & etc.]
>
> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
> drug cocktails should be used.
How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant? What's
about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
have been proposed by which HIV could harm. I do not believe
in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the devil-like properties
attributed such a totally incapable virus. The less evidence that a
supposedly fatal virus has any measurable effects, the more
astonishing and insidious properties must be ascribed to it.
>
> Continued:
> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
>
> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
-------------------------------
According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
onset of the antiviral therapy.
That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
brigade or an exhausted army.
There is a second aspect:
"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
that are unclear.
When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
protease inhibitors."
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm
My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
-------------------------------
> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
is murderous!
A quote of Duesberg:
"Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
asymptomatic carriers."
http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
technologies such as PCR.
> Continued:
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
> less than 200/mL..."
>
> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
> the trials.
The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
phase on a well-known pretext.)
> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
-------quote--------------------
And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
The following quote is quite representative:
"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
-------quote--------------------
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
> Let's review where the comments stand:
> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
harm caused by HIV.
> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
> provided.
Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
cocktails.
> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
> individuals.
How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
> Second paragraph:
> "If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
>
> That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
> so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
> Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
> claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
> to pathogen is clearly missing something.
I know this: nobody can be convinced in this world. The world is
in one's own head and it is almost impossible to change somebody's
head.
> I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
> "dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
> I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
> to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
> So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
> the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
> issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
> new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
> open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
> Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
> my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
> nobody would ever know...
>
> So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
> It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
> other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
> early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
> is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
> the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
> know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
> to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
Cheers
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)
We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!
mcoo...@my-dejanews.com
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hello Tim Ikeda!
>
> [snip]
Wolfgang. After you proposed in an earlier post, commiting murder as well as
demonstrating mindnumbing foolishness with your potentially suicidal proposal,
it became clear to me that you are either a troll or deeply disturbed.
Therefore this and any future responses I make to your HIV/AIDS dementia will
consist mostly of direct counters in the scientific literature.
To wit; you wrote;
>snip<
> FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
> (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
> some decades, if one believes that).
>snip<
HTLV-I was shown to the causative agent in a form of Acute T-cell Leukemia
(ATL) by none other than Robert Gallo and colleagues (see PNAS:1980; 77-7415-
7419 and Nature 1981; 294-271) and confirmed by Yoshida, et al (Anat Rev
1983; 117-532). ATL is endemic to Kyushu and Shikoku (the Southernmost
islands of Japan), parts of the Caribbean and Africa (PNAS 1981;30:6476-6480,
Int J Cancer 1982;30: 257-265, Int J. Cancer 1983;32:329-332). ATL has a
latency period of from a few months to 40 years with most victims developing
symptoms 20–30 years after infection.
I would venture to say that those poor folks who suffer from ATL would
consider it a VERY serious disease indeed. ATL is a highly aggressive cancer
with usually a 3 to 4 month (MONTH!) survival after diagnosis.
Other diseases caused by HTLV-I include Tropical Spastic Paraparesis (see
Lancet 1985;2:407-410, Lancet 1986;2:99-100) and HTLV-I Associated Myelopathy
(HAM) (Lancet 1986;1:1031-1032). HTLV-II causes a kind of Hairy Cell Leukemia
(see, for example, Science 1982; 218:571-573).
(note the above was lifted from a post I made earlier this year to Anthony
Pagano who tried to make a similar claim)
Tim Ikeda
I'm cross-posting this to misc-health-aids, where you may get
the chance to meet Steve Harris and discuss his article
on HIV/AIDS (which you "analyzed" previously in talk.origins).
>Hello Tim Ikeda!
>[snip]
Wolfgang wrote:
>>> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
>>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
I replied:
Wolfgang comments...
> FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
> (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
> some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
> causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
> HIV causes AIDS in humans.
mcoon discussed this in his talk.origins reply...
>Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
Oops! My mistake. *blush*
>A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
>their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
>it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
Retroviruses can survive as free forms, inside the cell and
independent of the host genome, or tucked away inside the
host's genome. There is no good way of predicting whether
evolution will lead to attenuated forms.
>> Continued:
>> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>>
>> (~ 100's of mg range)
>> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
>> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
>> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
>> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
>> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
>> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
>> HIV is no exception.
> In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
Big deal. What matters is the carrying capacity or the tolerance of
the system to the pathogen.
> And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
> system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
> to death.
Death occurred before AIDS therapy and happens in areas where AIDS
therapies cannot be afforded.
> There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
> at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
> of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
> accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
If it didn't infect and induce a failure of the immune system, the
story might be different. Perhaps you'd only have to worry about
liver cancer or shingles.
>> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
>> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
>> activity & etc.]
>>
>> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
>> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
>> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
>> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
>> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
>> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
>> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
>> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
>> drug cocktails should be used.
> How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
> onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
"Antiviral immunity" has been discussed before. HIV persists
and is continuously expressed. Drugs may push the expression to
close to (or less than) detectable levels.
> What's about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused
> by HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
> Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
Certainly. If someone did not have HIV, it would not be wise to
take the cocktails.
> HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
> have been proposed by which HIV could harm.
"HIV is not active"? That is, it has no effects at all on the
metabolism or function of its host cells?
So how come people who go off cocktails encounter increasing viral
titres and decreasing CD4+ counts? Why would HIV resistance to
antivirals correlate with higher HIV titres and lower CD4+ counts?
By your "drug induced immune failure model", wouldn't you expect many
cases where HIV remained susceptible to the drugs (and fully repressed)
but the immune system failed (say, CD4+ counts dropped)?
But let's procede with the "whip" analogy. Could that "whip" also
be a virus which perpetually infects cells of the immune system?
There is a second aspect:
[...snip...]
> My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
Great news!
>> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
>> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
>> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
>> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
>> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
> 0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
What's mass got to do with it? HIV is not necessarily
toxic by itself.
> 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
> is murderous!
Apparently it does reduce the likelihood of passing on HIV to
newborns...
> A quote of Duesberg:
>
> "Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
> years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
> cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
> become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
> in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
> herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
> toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
> that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
> asymptomatic carriers."
> http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
I don't think HIV viremia necessarily kills patients directly. I think
it contributes to the failure of the immune system which in turn
allows other diseases to occur.
> In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
> Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
> technologies such as PCR.
>> Continued:
>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
>> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
>> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
>> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
>> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
>> less than 200/mL..."
>
>> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
>> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
>> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
>> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
>> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
>> the trials.
> The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
> In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
> the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
>
> The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
> The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
> provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
> all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
> phase on a well-known pretext.)
Odd that the immune system failure comes at about the same time
that HIV resistance to drugs is observed. Wouldn't your proposal
suggest that the resistance of HIV to antivirals would be immaterial
to falling CD4+ counts?
>> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
>> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
>> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
>> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
>> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
-------quote--------------------
>And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
>molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
>blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>
>The following quote is quite representative:
>
>"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
>experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
>and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
>
>20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
>50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
>
Ah, here we go again. Wolfgang, it is extremely easy to
convert factors of a thousand. This uL/mL thing is not a
conspiracy; it is a matter of using convenient units.
Do you realize that the units in the web pages you quoted were
"mL" (milliliters), not "uL" (microliters)? You criticized
Ian for basing calculations on information _you_ presented.
That was what I talking about.
[...snip...]
>> Let's review where the comments stand:
>> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
>Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
>> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new
>> or unusual.
>Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
>> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
>Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
>harm caused by HIV.
That is the claim of the HIV dissidents.
>> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
>> provided.
>Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
> cocktails.
>> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
>> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
>> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
>> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
>> individuals.
>
> How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
Personally, I feel that one of the best indicator of HIV's roles in
AIDS come from those who carry mutations which appear to prevent
HIV infection and subsequently do not succumb to AIDS.
>Cheers
>Wolfgang
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
HTLV's are definitly pathogenic, amongst other things, it is the cause
of Adult T-cell leukemia, and has a very high mortality rate.
Takatsuki K. Kenneth MacGredie Memorial Lectureship. Adult T-cell
leukemia/lymphoma. Leukemia. 1997 Apr;11 Suppl 3:54-6.
as for FeLV, it is well known to cause fatal leukamia and lymphomas.
>The evidence that SIV causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
>HIV causes AIDS in humans.
You mean apart from the fact that experimental introduction of pure
SIV via intavenous, anal and vaginal routes causes HIV infection and
subsequent AIDS in Macaque monkeys? And that these animals develop
classic AIDS pathologies, such as neurodegeneration?
Neildez O, et al. Selective quasispecies transmission after systemic
or mucosal exposure of macaques to simian immunodeficiency virus.
Virology. 1998 Mar 30;243(1):12-20.
Putkonen P, et al. Clinical features and predictive markers of disease
progression in cynomolgus monkeys experimentally infected with simian
immunodeficiency virus. AIDS. 1992 Mar;6(3):257-63.
Daniel, M. D., et al., (1985). Isolation of a T-cell
tropic HTLV-III-like retrovirus from macaques. Science 228, 1200–
1204.
Sasseville VG, et al. Neuropathogenesis of simian immunodeficiency
virus infection in macaque monkeys. J Neurovirol. 1997 Feb;3(1):1-9.
>Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
>A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
>their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
>it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
If they can infect multiple new hosts before the original host dies,
then this is not a problem.
>> Continued:
>> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>>
>> (~ 100's of mg range)
>> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
>> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
>> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
>> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
>> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
>> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
>> HIV is no exception.
>
>In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
Well, yes actually. How many micrograms of Herpes simplex and Herpes
zoster are there compared to the grams of antiviral given? How many
bacteria are there in comparison to the antibiotics?
>And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
>system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
>to death.
As does current therapies for the Herpes viruses. HIV, like other
retrovirusues, can avoid the current theraputics because they only
traget replicting viruses, the virus can, by incorporating itself into
the host genome, avoid these anti-virals.
>There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
>at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
>of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
>accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
As myself and several other people have pointed out, viruses are not
toxins. They are replicating entities, continually infecting (and
causing the destruction of) T-cells until the imune system collapses.
Unlike toxins HIV also mutates, and can change the cell types it
infects during the course of an infection.
>> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
>> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
>> activity & etc.]
>>
>> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
>> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
>> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
>> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
>> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
>> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
>> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
>> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
>> drug cocktails should be used.
>
>How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
>onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
Read the paragraph again, he doesn't claim that it is _not_
important, it's not _directly_ relevant. The important questions are
1) Is the concentration of the drug achieved in the blood and body
fluids suficently high to prevent viral replication. [rates of
absorbtion from the gut and elimination from the blood profoundly
influence this].
2) Is this concentration going to produce significant side effects.
>What's
>about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
>HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
None, they are independent.
>Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
Relative harm is. And many people feel that the reduction in
neutrophils that occurs in some (not all) patients on AZT and the
increased life span is vastly better than the massive destruction of
the immune system and rapid death in full AIDS. Similarly, the
benefits of triple therapy in increased immune function, and
significantly longer life span out weigh the side effects of triple
therapy.
>HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
>have been proposed by which HIV could harm. I do not believe
>in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the devil-like properties
>attributed such a totally incapable virus. The less evidence that a
>supposedly fatal virus has any measurable effects, the more
>astonishing and insidious properties must be ascribed to it.
What do you mean that HIV is not active at all. Direct cell killing by
HIV probably plays a minor role in the destruction of the immune
system. The major cause of immune system destruction is the immune
system destroying itself by attacking infected immune cells. CD8 cells
directed at HIV-infected cells are probably the most important of
these mechanisms.
Pantaleo G. 1999 Nature Medicine, 5, 27-28.
>>
>> Continued:
>> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
>> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
>>
>> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
>> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
>> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
>> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
>> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
>
>Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
>
>-------------------------------
>
>According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
>such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
>inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
>trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
And has been pointed out, T-cell trafficing (redistribution from other
sites) is _not_ the cause of the persistent (nearly 2 years) rise in
T-cells. T-cell trafficing is transient, lasting only weeks. The
kinetics of T-cell loss, production and repopulation during HIV
infetion and after antiviral therapy have beed directly measured. The
rise in T-cell nubers is due to sustained production of T-cells.
Hellerstein M, et al. Directly measured kinetics of circulating T
lymphocytes in normal and HIV-1-infected humans. Nat Med. 1999
Jan;5(1):83-9.
>One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
>onset of the antiviral therapy.
T-cell trafficing is not "the immune system on overdrive".
See also
http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460532125
[snip exhaustion metaphor]
>There is a second aspect:
>
>"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
>patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
>NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
>http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
And the point of this is?
The actual article shows that people on triple therapy progress to
AIDS much more slowly, have better immune responses, better T-cell
levels and much lower viral loads than those on single or dual
theraphy.
>"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
>people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
>taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
>plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
>that are unclear.
>When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
>patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
>taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
>the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
>therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
>protease inhibitors."
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm
>
>My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
As these are exactly the cocktails that you have castigated as having
very obvious harm, don't you feel that this contradicts your position.
>-------------------------------
>
>> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
>> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
>> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
>> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
>> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
>
>0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
HIV is a virus! It _replicates_. Furthermore, it is a virus that
attackes the immune system.
But as also been pointed out, there are toxins such as saitiotoxin,
maitotoxin, bungarotoxin and tetrodotoxin that lethal at 0.1
microgram.
>1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
>is murderous!
No, ATZ is not lethal in that quantity.
[snip duesberg to satisfy my server line length quota]
>
>> Continued:
>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>>
>> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
>> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
>> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
>> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
>> less than 200/mL..."
>>
>> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
>> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
>> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
>> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
>> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
>> the trials.
>
>The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
>In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
>the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
However, these are long term trials (nearly two years), not short term
trials, and the benifit lasts. See also
Egger M, et al. Impact of new antiretroviral combination therapies in
HIV infected patients in Switzerland: prospective multicentre study.
Swiss HIV Cohort Study. BMJ. 1997 Nov 8;315(7117):1194-9.
>The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
>The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
>provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
>all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
>phase on a well-known pretext.)
No, there is a clear and consistent rise in T-cells over nearly two
years (along with a reduction in opportunistic infects). The kinetics
of recovery of the T-cells with therapy has been studied in detail as
noted above. This is _not_ an "alert phase".
Also, most clinical trials were stopped because the therapies were
giving clear benifits, and it was unethical to continue with-holding
therapy. In the particular study discussed on the web site, the trial
was unblinded at 52 weeks, well past any "alert phase", and followed
unblinded for anoher 32 weeks.
>> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
>> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
>> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
>> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
>> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
>
>-------quote--------------------
>
>And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
>molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
>blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>
>The following quote is quite representative:
>
>"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
>experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
>and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
It's not representative, and there is no dishonesty involved. There
was an error at the _Web_ site, the original papers say 200/uL, but it
seems that the web page was constructed by importing a word processed
document, and the fonts information was stripped out. m is micro(µ) in
symbol font on most word processors, but most HTML editors including
Adobe pagemill(as I have learned to my chagrin), the one used at the
unsw site, strip out symbol formatting unannounced when you import
Word documents (as my stuff has loads of micro sybols in it, this is
annoying in the extreme).
>20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
>50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
>
>-------quote--------------------
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
>
>
>> Let's review where the comments stand:
>> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
>
>Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
FeLV and HTLV are both pathogenic, lethal viruses
>> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
>
>Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
Not particularly.
>> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
>
>Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
>harm caused by HIV.
15% of triple therapy patients experience neutropenia, how is this
"stronger" than total immune system collapse and death?
>> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
>> provided.
>
>Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
>cocktails.
Yes they are, look at the paper again (why not check the original).
The triple therapy group have a 50% reduction in progression to AIDS,
and a larger reduction in death rate. This is confirmed in other
studies, such as the Swiss one quoted above.
>> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
>> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
>> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
>> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
>> individuals.
>
>How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
It's not naivity, it's understanding that data.
[snip rest]
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue and Jack Francis Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
z@z
Im not sure whether your posts are worth to be answered.
However, as far as I know you and others, my silence
would be interpreted as a sign of defeat.
I don't want to debate like someone who is interested
in fighting, but like somebody interested in truth. I'll try
primarily not to attack you, but to defend myself.
It is my, maybe biased, impression that you misrepresent
my writings. In some respect your method reminds me of
the Hitler-Goebbels-method: an assertion can be made true
by continuously repeating it.
I never intended the "contention that natural selection
cannot add biological information", and as far as I have
checked my posts, I did not even write something
which could suggest such a statement.
I explained this point in my last post.
"Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
can add information. My specific argument is based on the
fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
more probable than an information loss and that the principles
neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
in the long term."
My original statement:
"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
explained by random mutation and selection."
Your trick is an old one. You put this statement in a different
context primarily by renaming the thread from "Phillip Johnson
interview ..." to "Mutation and NS add information ...".
The expression "this information" changed from "vast
amounts of genetic information that weren't there before"
to "information added by mutation and NS".
Therefore, what you write in post #7 is nothing more than an
intentional misrepresentation:
"I don't see any qualifiers about time or anything else in
that claim. If Wolfgang is officially retracting his original
claim in order to make a less reality-challenged one, that
would be fine by me.
I doubt that Wolfgang can produce any more evidence for his
new claim than he has for his old, apparently abandoned, one.
And that would be: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None."
And the statement you have repeated six times in your seven
answers to my previous post is based on a lie:
"So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information."
> A logical argument also has things like premises and
> conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
> logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it,
> or provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
> Nobody is stopping him.
It is quite difficult to debate with somebody who has
more confidence in complicated formulas and theories he
does not understand than in common sense and simple
logical reasoning.
For me, the assumption that behaviour patterns (e.g.
the sucking instinct of babies, the flight or fight response,
the instinct to build a usable nest at the right time in order
to hibernate) need at least some bytes (several base pairs
of genetic code) is self-evident.
You would only accept it, if there were a generally
accepted theory stating it (the more complicated and
obscure, the better).
A good example is your use of Dembski's formula
as evidence for an information increase by mutation
and NS despite the fact, that this formula has
nothing to do with genetic information (as stored
in the DNA), much less with mutations.
I bet away my life that relativity theory and QM are both
inconsistent. When I studied at university computer
science, I was interested primarily in theoretical
disciplines. I recognized that the more complicated,
'scientific', or obscure theories or even definitions are,
the more questionable, absurd and even inconsistent.
And after having dealt intensively with theoretical
physics I cannot be impressed any more by complicated
formulas and theories. Instead, the nearer to common
sense and the simpler, the more impressive!
Cheers
Wolfgang
Stephen Watson
>Hello Wesley!
[....]
It is my, maybe biased, impression that you misrepresent
>my writings. In some respect your method reminds me of
>the Hitler-Goebbels-method: an assertion can be made true
>by continuously repeating it.
BZZZZZZZZZ! Nazi reference alert! In accordance with Godwin's Law,
this thread is now officially declared dead. Wolfgang automatically
loses the debate.
--
## Steve Watson: swa...@nortelnetworks.com # Nortel Networks, Ottawa Canada ##
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not Nortel's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Wesley R. Elsberry
W>Hello Wesley!
W>Im not sure whether your posts are worth to be answered.
W>However, as far as I know you and others, my silence would
W>be interpreted as a sign of defeat.
I don't know about "defeat", but certainly as a sign that
Wolfgang had abandoned various and sundry claims of his.
Like the claim that I was "bluffing" concerning the presence
of various logical blunders in a specific paragraph of
Wolfgang's... that seems to be one of the posts that Wolfgang
has chosen to ignore. See it at
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465334900>
I talked about Wolfgang's claim to a "specific argument" in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465337547>. I can see
how Wolfgang could wish the post didn't exist.
I called upon Wolfgang to document his claim of confusion on
my part in <http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465330124>. I
can see that Wolfgang would prefer to ignore the fact that he
is passing out falsehoods rather than retract the false claim,
as Wolfgang asserts is the proper thing to do (at least when
other people make a false assertion, that is).
[Quote]
In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
therefore you should retract it.
[End Quote - Wolfgang,
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462406316>]
As I have been at pains to demonstrate, Wolfgang has quite a
number of unsupported claims that should be retracted, and yet
I don't seem to recall seeing even one such retraction coming
from Wolfgang. Surely Wolfgang would not wish to be thought
of as a hypocrite, would he?
I pointed out an instance of inconsistency between assertions
of Wolfgang's in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465330124>. I can see
that far more convenience can be had by simply ignoring the
whole issue than by clarifying what actually is being advanced
by Wolfgang.
I corrected Wolfgang on finalism in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465327380>. That's
something much easier to duck than to address, I guess.
I pointed out Wolfgang's arrogance in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465332532>. That's
always good to simply ignore as if it hadn't been recognized.
I documented Wolfgang's misrepresentation concerning "pure
chance" and evolutionary theorists in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465332535>. Wolfgang
doesn't seem overly concerned about not getting things right,
like what biologists actually say. Otherwise, I'm sure we
would have seen a retraction.
W>I don't want to debate like someone who is interested in
W>fighting, but like somebody interested in truth. I'll try
W>primarily not to attack you, but to defend myself.
Actually, I've called upon Wolfgang to defend certain of his
*ideas*, not himself. Wolfgang chooses not to support those
ideas. I tend to interpret that as indicating that the ideas
are incapable of support.
W>It is my, maybe biased, impression that you misrepresent my
W>writings. In some respect your method reminds me of the
W>Hitler-Goebbels-method: an assertion can be made true by
W>continuously repeating it.
That is a critique that is far more cogently aimed at
Wolfgang's own repeated, but unsupported, assertions. Around
here, we call that "the Kalki Syndrome".
W>I never intended the "contention that natural selection
W>cannot add biological information", and as far as I have
W>checked my posts, I did not even write something which could
W>suggest such a statement.
Really? Let's have a look at past posts to see where I might
have gotten that idea.
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452740674>: Wolfgang
quotes Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson says that the
neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of information is
well-known, but asserts that it is easy to doubt the adequacy
of that explanation. Hint: Mutation and natural selection
have a very close relationship with "the neo-Darwinian
explanation".
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462549235>: Wolfgang
makes his claim that it is a "(logical) fact" that "this
information cannot be explained by random mutation and
selection". Wolfgang grounds this in the context of
understanding Johnson. See the previously cited message.
Between the above two cited posts of Wolfgang's, one can see
that what Johnson is critiquing is the adequacy of mutation
and natural selection as a means of accounting for biological
information. Wolfgang merely parrots Johnson in this regard,
but may arguably be said to be misrepresenting Johnson as
having made a more sweeping claim than Johnson actually made
in the quoted passages. Wolfgang states it as a "(logical)
fact" that mutation and natural selection cannot account for
the origin of biological information, but Johnson said that he
believed there existed reasons to doubt the adequacy of the
explanation. At that point, I requested Wolfgang to support
his claim. See
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462581020>. Wolfgang has
made a bunch of replies since then, but has never come close
to supporting his claim.
W>I explained this point in my last post.
W> "Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
W> vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
W> nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
W> can add information. My specific argument is based on the
W> fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
W> more probable than an information loss and that the principles
W> neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
W> in the long term."
The "original quote" appears in
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462406316>. That post is
notable in that the attributes that Wolfgang gives above for his
"specific argument" are notable by their absence. "Information
loss", either as a specific phrase or as a general concept, is
conspicuously absent from that post. If Wolfgang wishes to
imply that I have missed the meaning of some clearly stated
"specific argument", he would do well to select a "specific
argument" that actually existed within the thread at the time,
and not simply invent one that Wolfgang wishes he *had* made at
the time, in the hopes that no one will notice.
W>My original statement:
W> "That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W> is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W> explained by random mutation and selection."
W>Your trick is an old one.
Yep, the trick of letting ignorant blowhards rave on until
they spout obvious falsehoods has a distinguished history. I
merely continue the tradition of pointing out those lapses
on the part of such blowhards.
W>You put this statement in a different context primarily by
W>renaming the thread from "Phillip Johnson interview ..." to
W>"Mutation and NS add information ...". The expression "this
W>information" changed from "vast amounts of genetic
W>information that weren't there before" to "information added
W>by mutation and NS".
W>Therefore, what you write in post #7 is nothing more than an
W>intentional misrepresentation:
See below for my dismantling of Wolfgang's rhetoric.
WRE> "I don't see any qualifiers about time or anything else in
WRE> that claim. If Wolfgang is officially retracting his original
WRE> claim in order to make a less reality-challenged one, that
WRE> would be fine by me.
WRE> I doubt that Wolfgang can produce any more evidence for his
WRE> new claim than he has for his old, apparently abandoned, one.
WRE> And that would be: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None."
Is this misrepresentation? Obviously, Wolfgang would like
nothing better than to dismiss me as a teller of falsehoods.
But that is not the truth.
[Quote]
Thereafter, the theory
ascribes the increases in information to random mutation, and
insists that the vast quantity of information can be provided by
mutation in very small doses, if each dose immediately adds to
the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce.
[...]
There are many excellent reasons for doubting the adequacy of
this kind of explanation. Random changes (such as copying errors
in the DNA) do not generate increases in information, whether
they are small or large. It is not necessarily easier to provide the
same amount of information in multitudinous small doses, rather
than a single large one.
[End Quote - Wolfgang quoting PEJ,
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452740674>]
That is not talking about the whole enchilada as Wolfgang has
elsewhere stated as his defense -- that I have
mischaracterized his stance. Wolfgang endorses Johnson, and
Johnson obviously disagrees with the capability of mutation
and natural selection to generate *any* biological
information. (An assertion that Johnson admits small-scale
information gains due to neo-Darwinian mechanism is
inconsistent with the quotes that Wolfgang has provided from
Johnson.) It is right there in the quotes that *Wolfgang*
provided. If Wolfgang disagrees with Johnson on this
statement, he can say so explicitly. In which case, Wolfgang
can also apologize to Dr. Weinstein, because Wolfgang will
have repudiated his assertion that Weinstein did not
understand Johnson.
W>And the statement you have repeated six times in your seven
W>answers to my previous post is based on a lie:
WRE> "So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
WRE> contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
WRE> add biological information."
No, it is based *directly* upon what *Wolfgang* has endorsed
of Phillip E. Johnson. Anyone can check out the message URLs
that I have provided to see that I am telling the truth here.
Notice that Wolfgang isn't about to give a URL so that someone
else can look at a complete message and come to an informed
opinion, just as Wolfgang has consistently failed to produce
any support for his original claim, in whatever sense Wolfgang
chooses to interpret it at the moment.
I'm going to restore a piece of text that Wolfgang apparently
did not want you to see in association with what he quoted of
me following it.
[Quote]
W>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
W>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
[End Quote - Wolfgang]
WRE> A logical argument also has things like premises and
WRE> conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
WRE> logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it,
WRE> or provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
WRE> Nobody is stopping him.
W>It is quite difficult to debate with somebody who has
W>more confidence in complicated formulas and theories he
W>does not understand than in common sense and simple
W>logical reasoning.
And so Wolfgang points out the sufficiency of logical argument
in one post, and then repudiates it in his next reply. A
convenient deletion of relevant context gives him at least the
opportunity to not appear immediately inconsistent with
himself. Except for the fact that I restore relevant context,
Wolfgang might even have toted this up as a rhetorical success.
I'm not interested in a debate. What I am interested in is
seeing Wolfgang make his best case for his own claims. So
far, Wolfgang seems not to care about those claims. They
apparently can go by the boards so long as it gives Wolfgang
an opportunity to make nasty comments about me. Wolfgang has,
despite his one-time espousal of logical argumentation
documented above, failed to provide a complete logical
argument in support of the claims that I originally
questioned.
W>For me, the assumption that behaviour patterns (e.g. the
W>sucking instinct of babies, the flight or fight response,
W>the instinct to build a usable nest at the right time in
W>order to hibernate) need at least some bytes (several base
W>pairs of genetic code) is self-evident.
*Some* behaviors probably require quite a lot of interacting
proteins. Others, though, probably can be altered or produced
by point mutations. Behavior seems to me no different in this
regard than features of morphology. The assertion that all
behaviors require large amounts of information appears to be
completely unsupported by anything other than Wolfgang's
wishing it were so.
W>You would only accept it, if there were a generally accepted
W>theory stating it (the more complicated and obscure, the
W>better).
Yet another claim that Wolfgang has no hope of supporting.
W>A good example is your use of Dembski's formula as evidence
W>for an information increase by mutation and NS despite the
W>fact, that this formula has nothing to do with genetic
W>information (as stored in the DNA), much less with mutations.
We can see that Dembski's formula does not reflect genetics.
But that is irrelevant, because *Dembski* believed it did
reflect genetics. The point of citing Dembski was to show
that even those who claim that mutation and natural selection
do not explain all information still find it unexceptionable
that mutation and natural selection accounts for *some*
biological information. That Dembski goofed in his formula
is a separate issue.
W>I bet away my life that relativity theory and QM are both
W>inconsistent. When I studied at university computer science,
W>I was interested primarily in theoretical disciplines. I
W>recognized that the more complicated, 'scientific', or
W>obscure theories or even definitions are, the more
W>questionable, absurd and even inconsistent.
Sentence fragment.
This doesn't appear to have any relevance to Wolfgang's claims
concerning mutation and natural selection. I'd also be very
wary concerning anything Wolfgang says about statistics, given
his disavowal of counterintuitive concepts.
W>And after having dealt intensively with theoretical physics
W>I cannot be impressed any more by complicated formulas and
W>theories. Instead, the nearer to common sense and the
W>simpler, the more impressive!
Even when particular simple and appealing-to-common-sense
concepts are shown to have the attribute of being
counter-factual?
Now, how about a complete bit of logical reasoning of whatever
level of simplicity or complexity that actually addresses the
original claims? I'll append that here for reference...
[Quote]
[...]
SAW> Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are
SAW> known. And there are several kinds of mutations that increase
SAW> the length of the genome. Basically the question of adding
SAW> information (in the Shannon sense anyway) requires that
SAW> there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
SAW> Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually
SAW> make the claim that "information" cannot be created by the
SAW> evolutionary process. By the way, how do you define
SAW> information? How does Johnson define it?
W>You do not understand the real problem.
Really? And that is evidenced in what manner?
W>If you had tried to understand the writings of Johnson, you
W>would not argue in such a way.
Really? And the line of argument that leads to that
conclusion is what?
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
be referenced where? Be specific.
[...]
[End Quote - WR Elsberry,
<http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462581020>
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Seasons don't fear the reaper\Nor do the wind sun or the rain" - BOC
z@z
> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
> W>of usable energy.
>
> WRE> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
> WRE> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
> WRE> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
> WRE> pre-biotic chemistry.
Interesting! You critize me for characterizing neo-Darwinism
by "random mutation", the most controversial property and
the one by which neo-Darwinism can be distinguished from
Intelligent Design or my own theory. On the other hand you
feel authorized to characterize neo-Darwinism by "random
mutation and selection" without mentioning the really complex
and problematic concepts of Darwinism.
> W>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
> W>the emergence of biological information. There must be
> W>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
> W>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
> W>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
> Reproduction and inheritance are not finalistic at basis.
> While finalism of various forms has been expressed in biology
> before, such things as orthogenesis and arstogenesis are now
> quite extinct. I can't help it if Wolfgang is confused by
> reality.
It's not me who is confused by reality, it's you who is
confused by theory! That finalism has been discarded
in modern mainstream biology is not very convincing.
Also the heliocentric world view of Aristarchus of
Samos had been discarded for almost twenty centuries.
I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
(By the way: do you think I should replace
'final' by 'finalistic' and 'finality' by 'finalism'?)
In general, a principle is called finalistic if it is defined
not by some kind of mechanism but by a result. And
reproduction is without doubt defined by a result:
the copy (with minor changes) of the original.
It is perfectly natural that you must deny the fact
that reproduction is a finalistic principle, because
this fact refutes not only neo-Darwinism but
modern mainstream biology as well (as far as this
principle is used without being itself reduced to
causal principles).
> As has been pointed out, the concepts of "mutation" and
> "natural selection" are dependent upon both reproduction and
> inheritance. This would indicate that Wolfgang has a certain
> amount of confusion concerning very basic concepts in biology.
Mutation and selection without reproduction would lead
to extinction of the whole population in one generation.
Reproduction, mutation and selection without inheritance
would result in invariant species.
So in order to explain a continuous evolution of life,
reproduction and mutation (i.e. difference of the
copy from the original) must be connected in a very
special (and therefore apriori in a very improbable)
way that entails inheritance of the mutation.
Mutation without reproduction and inheritance is a very
simple principle which can be compared with random
errors in a written text or in a digitally transmitted
message, but it is not very helpful for explaining
evolution.
Mutation with reproduction and inheritance is an
extremely complex principle: it entails the whole
ontogenesis until fertile age, and therefore even
depends on protein folding.
Neo-Darwinism as a simple theory needs this ambiguity
of 'mutation'. Therefore it is not exaggerated to conclude
that neo-Darwinism is founded on a well-known
philosophical fallacy.
> W>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
> W>arbitrary.
>
> The qualitative distinction between systems without mechanisms
> of inheritance and systems with mechanisms of inheritance
> seems pretty clear.
Please explain me the difference between "systems
without mechanisms of inheritance" and "systems with
mechanisms of inheritance" in a non-circular way.
> W>Also the immense information of the first self- replicating
> W>proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a prerequisite
> W>of the information needed for a human being.
>
> If Wolfgang provides the information content of the first
> protocell and its precursors for analysis, we'll be able to
> see whether "cell fairies" are necessary for explanations
> or not. But that wasn't what this thread was about. We can
> go into that elsewhere. In this thread, what is at issue is
> Wolfgang's claim that mutation and natural selection cannot
> add biological information.
It does not even matter, that you misrepresent my claim:
if abiogenesis is a prerequisite for mutation and natural
selection, it is also a prerequistite for adding biological
information by that that means.
> W>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
> W>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
> W>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
> W>children who were born after successive mutation and
> W>selection.
>
> And this is relevant to proving that mutation and natural
> selection cannot add biological information in what way?
Yes. Suppose the extremely improbable would have
happened and a self-replicating system would have
appeared by pure chance (that chemical and physical
laws are involved, is out of question). If it became extinct
many thousands years later because the pond it lived
in dried out, then it would not have made possible the
accumulation of huge amounts of biological information.
> W>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
> W>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
>
> [...]
>
> Some of us disagree on the "artificiality" of the distinction.
>
> So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
> contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
> add biological information.
Don't try to twist what I write, you'll always lose by doing it.
You are an excellent sophist, but I'm an even better logician.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Doug Quarnstrom
: Don't try to twist what I write, you'll always lose by doing it.
: You are an excellent sophist, but I'm an even better logician.
Really? You conceal it well.
doug
Del
It appears Wolfgang found the task of contesting my
arguments insurmountable. I guess he would rather deal
with the weightier issues like whether I am posting
under different names (as he does).
In article <7edmkl$jr4$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hello Richard (C. Carrier)!
>
> Why do you write your posts anonymously
Probably for the same reason you do.
(is also 'Bud' a
> pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
> an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
No. Why don't you show me.
>
> If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
It would be easier to list the occurrences where you
weren't in error if one were inclined to tally up such
things.
> Yours posts, however, remind me even much stronger of
> Richard than the posts of mcoon remind me of Ian Musgrave.
> Such a combination of erudition, good style, naivety, dogmatism,
> arrogance and intentional (or instinctive) misrepresentation is
> very exceptional.
Thanks for the evidence-free and irrelevant personal
attack. I guess such tactics look pretty inviting to
you when you cannot successfully answer the charges, or
face the arguments made against you. But don't you
think it is a bit unsportsman-like to attack me because
of your own argumentational inadequacies?
The adult thing to do would have been to admit you
couldn't address the issues and take responsibility for
that. Even a sullen silence would have been more mature
than this unsuccessful face-saving attempt by you.
Regardless, you chose this road, so even though your ad
hominem attack is irrelevant (by it's very nature) the
accusations you made -- especially that of
misrepresentation -- are now a different issue, one you
are ethically required to deal with. In short,
substantiate your accusations or retract them.
> Because I think that it is much more probable you are Richard
> than you are not, this post is based on the 'Del equals Richard
> hypothesis'.
The only response required here is to point this out as
another example of your single-minded goal of avoiding
my rebuttal of your claims.
> Do you remember our discussion on entropy:
We had no such discussion. But apparently it is a
subject you are much more enthusiastic about discussing
than the subject at hand. Did you think such evasion
wouldn't be obvious?
[snipped irrelevant quotes]
[...]
>
> Now back to you, Del. The following extract is representative for
> our whole debate:
Why on earth should anyone take your word for this??
> >> Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
> >> different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
> >> You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
> >>
> >> But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
> >> ( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
> >> and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
> >> Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
> >> in the article.
> >>
> >> The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
> >> synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
> >
> > No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
> > talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
> >
> >>
> >> Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
> >> selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
> >> the rest.
> >
> > Wrong. Sorry, but you do not, nor does any other
> > theistic anti-evolutionist, define terms for science.
> > This excuse doesn't wash anyway.
> >
> >
> >> Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
> >> is possible.
> >
> > Straw man.
>
> Look for instance:
> http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.html
> especially:
> Figure 2: The Process of Natural Selection
What am I supposed to be looking for? Note when I cite
a URL it is for a specific issue. You claim:
"The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German)."
I say:
"No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html"
But here you just throw a url out to establish ...
what? Nothing there contradicted a thing I said nor
supported a thing you said.
> And even if Johnson's use of 'natural selection' were uncommon,
Not "uncommon." Misleading. He knew his audience and
knew they would not object to, let alone notice, his
straw men.
> you would have no right to criticize Johnson's LOGIC based on an
> interpretation of 'natural selection' which is not his.
You mean if he is only _repeating_ his anti-
evolutionist tripe, he is above criticism?
> I don't want to apply your method which consists in defending
> one's own view by increasing the length of the posts
Another attempt to get something for nothing? You would
do well to consider why you must rely on such posturing
-- trying to hide your vacuous accusation here in this
petty, self-aggrandizing cloak -- so consistently.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious I'll point out
that you have made no attempt to show your accusation
here has any correspondence with reality. Pretending
that you know me and that this is my tactic is
transparently lame. It is another accusation you are
ethically required to substantiate or retract.
Do so.
> (maybe in the
> hope people will not read them carefully).
That wasn't your problem though. You read it a bit too
carefully, which is why you did NOT respond.
> You really should take to heart what I have written in my previous
> post:
>
> "But there is a general rule: one always should choose
> the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
> is written by a person one does not agree with!"
Once again, Mr. Gang tries to get something for
nothing. The insinuation is, of course, that I do not
choose "the most coherent interpretation of a text even
if the text is written by a person one does not agree
with."
The only problem with this is that it is the very issue
that Mr. Gang now avoids. I made my case against
Johnson (message ID: jfacts-
05049915...@1cust225.tnt1.san-jose.ca.da.uu.net).
Mr. Gang saw fit to offer his run-on ad hominem attack
instead of a rebuttal to it. So his "request" here
rings a bit hollow. It is, in fact just another thinly
veiled bit of posturing -- argument by attitude instead
of substance.
> I'm sorry for my aggressive tone.
To be sure: the attempt to save face will bring such
things about.
I do not like to attack anyone's
> personal authority,
I claim no personal authority. You, on the other hand,
do nothing but. Ironic, no?
> but there are cases where I feel obliged to do so.
But in this case you felt obliged to evade the issues
by attacking me instead. But I accept your admission of
defeat.
jerry and judy
In article <7f5njq$56o$1...@freeside.cls.net>, "Andreas Koslowski"
<Andreas....@kiel.netsurf.de> wrote:
>Pastor Frank said in Nachricht <7f5mnn$ekg$1...@nntp3.uunet.ca>...
>>John Ings wrote in message <36908706...@crc-news.doc.ca>...
>>>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 17:39:50 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
>>><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you sure, you are not just objecting to the existence of an
>>>>infantile 'hairy warrior' God idea in your overactive imagination?
>>>
>>>No, I'm objecting to it in the theist's imagination.
>>>
>> Considering your inability to understand abstract Biblical symbolism
>and
>>metaphor it's no wonder you are nonplused by the theist's encoded language.
>>What you object to is only your 'assumption' of what the theist imagines.
>
>Only your endless arrogance let's you assume that you know what the Bible
>"really" says. But you feel so special about your deep relationship with god
>that one day you're gonna blow up from too much holyness. Last time I read
>something from you, you said you were still on your way to being Jesus-like
>and now it's already "Pastor" Frank. Uh oh.
Pastor Frank,
We beseech you, turn away and fortify yourself against your innate natural
weakness for these human-based religions!! We've read you for years, and
we have every confidence that you are intellectually aware of its
insidiousness! You're too smart to think that humans are in any way the
'focus' of the whole wide universe! Say it isn't so! Say it isn't so!
Jerry
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt
up after being drunk all night."
[Isaac Asimov]
Todd A. Farmerie
[combining quotes from a couple of posts in this thread]
> Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
> thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so
> many side effects that finally the immune system gets
> exhausted!
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
First of all, this web site says nothing about "very toxic substances"
nor about the immune system getting exhausted. It describes a clinical
trial in which a dosing regimen with three drugs did substantially
better than a dosing regimen with two or with one. How can you justify
referencing this site as if it supported your statement, when it does
nothing of the sort?
Now, since you continue to make the claim that this is a hugh dose, lets
take a look at the pharmacokinetics, shall we. Using the average dosing
regimen provided in your reference, (and an average sized man, who will
come in handy later) we end up with a gram of drug going in the mouth
per day. What does this figure imply? Absolutely nothing, because for
all you know most of it goes in one end and out the other. The oral
dose is not a good indication of either the effectiveness or the
toxicity of a drug, since both of these depend on the concentration of
the drug at the site of action.
First you have to take into account what is called the oral
bioavailability - the proportion of ingested drug that actually reaches
the bloodstream. In the case of AZT, that figure is about .63 (63%).
Why is this the case? It is (mostly) because the elimination of AZT is
largely through metabolism by the liver, and that is the first place
that blood from the stomach goes, so 37% of the drug gets taken out of
circulation before it ever goes into the circulation. (Note that if
taken with food, the amount of AZT getting into the circulation drops.)
Now you are down to 630 mg per day. What does this tell you? More than
you knew before, but not enough to really know what is going on. Why is
that? Because the action of drugs does not depend on the mass which
gets into the circulation, but the concentration.
So, what is the concentation of AZT in the circulation when taking this
dose? For that, you need to know the Clearance. What is the
clearance? It is actually a mathamatical construct which represents how
quickly a drug is eliminated from the blood. It can be determined
either from a calculation based on the half-life of the drug in the
circulation (determined, for example, by stopping administration, and
then measuring the kinetics of the decline of drug concentration in the
blood) and the Volume of Distribution (determined by giving a single
dose, and measuring the resulting plasma concentration, it is an
indication of the binding and distribution of the drug in the body), or
else from the equation we are about to use. The average clearance of
AZT is 26 mL/min-kg, which when multiplied by your average 70kg man
gives you 1820 mL/min, 109200 mL/hr, or 1310400 mL/day. What does this
tell us? It gives us an idea relative to other drugs, and it lets us
find out what we really need to know, the concentration resulting from
this dose.
When a patient begins taking a drug dosage regimen, the concentration in
the plasma will increase rapidly at first, and then level off to a
steady concentration (this takes about 4 half lives). From this point,
as long as the dosage does not change, the average concentration in the
plasma will not change. In other words, the patient is taking in the
same amount of drug that they are eliminating (elimination for this drug
primarily involves enzymes in the liver which convert the drug into a
chemical which is biologically inactive), causing the concentration in
the blood to remain constant.
Thus: D/T * fo = Cl * Cave
where D/T is dose/time (mg/day, for example), fo is the oral
bioavailability, and the product of these represents the amount of drug
getting into the circulation. Cl is the clearance, and Cave is the
average steady-state plasma concentration. The clearance is a measure
of elimination relative to the concentration, so Cl*Cave is the amount
of drug eliminated (again, mg/time). Plugging in what he have from
above, you get an average concentration of 0.48 ug/ml.
(This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
other drugs.)
Now I will do the same calculation for another drug. The recommended
dose is 4g/day, its oral bioavailability is .88, and it's clearance is 5
ml/min-kg. In your average man, that gives you a Cave of 13.97 ug/mL,
or 30 times the plasma concentration of AZT. This drug, at this
concentration, can cause severe symptoms in a subset of patients
(particularly social drinkers with poor diets, who because of their
illness have stopped drinking). It results in liver toxicity, and often
requires emergency transplants in these patients. At higher doses,
these symptoms appear in the general population, and without rapid
intervention, results in liver failure and death.
Are we talking about a pretty toxic drug, or what? And the typical
plasma concentration of this drug is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying
your logic to this drug, this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible
dose of thousands of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE
of all of those headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches
that causes millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen.
(NOT!)
There are several points to this exercise. First, that the oral dose of
a drug tells you very little about the effective plasma concentration,
which usually determines both its effectiveness and toxicity. Likewise,
the dose of AZT is not a high dose relative to other common drugs.
Finally, most common drugs can cause toxicity at some concentration, but
that need not mean that they are not perfectly safe at lower
concentrations, or that they should not be used, (or that they cause the
illness they are used to treat).
> The evidence that SIV
> causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
> HIV causes AIDS in humans.
They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
> A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
> their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
> it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
The viruses don't sit on the porch drinking whiskey and strategizing
about their evolutionary success. They infect cells and they
reproduce. If the "lifestyle" of the virus ends up making more virus,
then they will perpetuate themselves. If these new viruses infect other
hosts before they kill off their own, then they will be successful. If
one of them just happens to mutate in such a way that it reproduces and
infects at the same rate but does't kill its host, then with time there
will be more of that virus than the one that offs it's host. (That is
how we end up with so many innocuous viruses.) This random mutation is
not something that the virus has any control over, plans for, or schemes
about. Rabies, in only letting those infected live a couple of weeks,
represents the antithesis of your "evolutionary sense", but that doesn't
mean that it is innocuous, and that the innoculation plus the public
condemnation and fear is what kills those bit by a mad dog.
> There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
> at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
> of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
> accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
You are again comparing a toxin with a reproducing entity. If each
molecule of arsenic could make more molecules of arsenic, it would be a
different story. On top of that, ansenic does not inhibit the processes
that enable the body to get accustomed, while HIV both kills cells and
inhibits the production of new cells until there aren't any more.
> > This argument about
> > relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
> > drug cocktails should be used.
>
> How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
> onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
Probably because he is aware that the actions of a drug, both
therapeutic and toxic, depend on the concentration of the drug at the
site of action, and not the total body burden (mass) of the drug. Thus
the relative mass of drug is NEVER relevant to its therapeutic or toxic
effects (other than the duration), only it's concentration is.
> What's
> about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
> HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
> Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
The relationship between the obvious harm caused by HIV and the harm
(supposedly) caused by the cocktails is quite relevant. HIV will kill
you without pharmacological intervention. The drug dose can be adjusted
to minimize toxicity. Would you rather die, or not?
> "These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
> patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
> NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
> My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
The new therapies including protease inhibitors developed to
specifically inhibit the HIV virus protease, and these result in a
better prognosis than similar regimens without the specifically targeted
drug. What does this tell you about HIV and AIDS?
> 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
> is murderous!
A plasma concentration of 0.48 ug/ml is not murderous, or even high
compared to other drugs.
taf
Del
> Hi Wesley!
>
> > W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
> > W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
> > W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
> > W>of usable energy.
> >
> > WRE> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
> > WRE> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
> > WRE> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
> > WRE> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
> Interesting! You critize me for characterizing neo-Darwinism
> by "random mutation", the most controversial property and
> the one by which neo-Darwinism can be distinguished from
> Intelligent Design or my own theory. On the other hand you
> feel authorized to characterize neo-Darwinism by "random
> mutation and selection" without mentioning the really complex
> and problematic concepts of Darwinism.
What is interesting is your revisionism here. Let
me refresh your memory. You said:
> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
> W>of usable energy.
He said:
>
> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
> pre-biotic chemistry.
He was pointing out your changing terms to your advantage
in mid stream.
>
> > W>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
> > W>the emergence of biological information. There must be
> > W>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
> > W>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
> > W>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
> >
> > Reproduction and inheritance are not finalistic at basis.
> > While finalism of various forms has been expressed in biology
> > before, such things as orthogenesis and arstogenesis are now
> > quite extinct. I can't help it if Wolfgang is confused by
> > reality.
>
> It's not me who is confused by reality, it's you who is
> confused by theory!
A better description of yourself. For instance, your
erroneous attribution of the word ("theory") to your
"ideas" about evolution. The fact is it does not begin
to qualify as a theory, in the scientific meaning of the
word. Yes, I know you will come back with one of your
"witty" rejoinders: "it is so a theory!" as proof that
it is. But instead of boring us with another of your
endless fact/reason-free assertions, why don't you try
something new: offer an argument why we should believe
that your pet belief actually qualifies as theory.
Show us you know what a scientific theory actually
is. Show us you've tested your "theory" by making
"risky predictions" (Popper) and that it stood up.
Tell us what those risky predictions were.
That would be a start. But I won't hold my breath
because the last thing you want to do is to expose
your pet dogma to criticism.
You seem to think that attacking evolutionary theory
you will advance your own dogma. Guess what: it won't.
> That finalism has been discarded
> in modern mainstream biology is not very convincing.
Of what? To whom? That you are not convinced of something
that doesn't align with your pet dogma isn't surprising.
There is nothing that would convince you.
[...]
> Neo-Darwinism as a simple theory needs this ambiguity
> of 'mutation'. Therefore it is not exaggerated to conclude
> that neo-Darwinism is founded on a well-known
> philosophical fallacy.
One you just happened to forget to mention.
[...]
>
> Don't try to twist what I write, you'll always lose by doing it.
> You are an excellent sophist,
>but I'm an even better logician.
That must mean all the fallacies you've committed were
done intentionally, with the intent to deceive. (Would
you like a list of them?)
z@z
[snip]
> W>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
> W>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
> W>purposefulness and so on).
>
> And is thus comprised of applications of reductionist causal
> laws, right?
Yes.
> W>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
> W>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
>
> Really? Provide an illustrative instance for documentation,
> then. If this claim is true, that should be a piece of cake.
An illustrative instance of general relevance is the claim*
that one, two or three point mutations can add enough
information for a a new behaviour pattern of animals
or a new surviving strategy of bacterias to appear.
It is an empirical fact that simple point mutations can
lead to the appearance of such new properties. If we
interpret the concerned base pairs only as switches,
then we must assume that the information for the new
property was there before. But switching on a
preexistent property is not enough to explain evolution.
Insofar as neo-Darwinism is supposed to explain the
appearence of new properties, information must be
created. But the information cannot depend on more
than just a few one-step-mutations. (If the probability
of one such mutation is 10^-6, the probability of three
one-step-mutations is already 10^-18.)
It is, however, illogical (against reason) to assume that
the information needed for the new property can be
produced by one, two or three point mutations
corresponding to less than 1 byte.
So we must distinguish the following cases:
1) The *claim (see above) is an empirical fact.
2) The *claim must be a consequence of neo-
Darwinism, if this theory is correct.
3) The *claim is inconsistent with the reductionist
basis, neo-Darwinism is founded on.
Therefore, the above *claim is not a consequence of
the principles neo-Darwinism is based on, but at most
a consequence from the belief that neo-Darwinism
is the correct explanation of the continuous evolution
or creation of life.
> W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
> W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
> W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
> W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
> W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
> W>again after having appeared by chance.
>
> If one takes
>
> "Reductionist causal laws do not explain why sub-systems which are
> useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of disappearing
> after having appeared by chance."
The context of my quote deals with the appearence of the parts
of self-replicating systems and not with adaptive properties as
you suggest here:
> to mean, "Reductionist causal laws do not explain how adaptive
> subsystems become widespread in a population instead of
> disappearing after their first instantiation via mutation or
> recombination", then one can easily point to Fisher's 1930
> "Genetical Basis of Natural Selection" for detailed
> mathematical treatments of just how often we should *expect* a
> new adaptive feature to be propagated in a population, and how
> often we should expect it to simply disappear again. It is
> precisely in that sense that I said that Wolfgang's original
> statement was wrong.
Unfortunately I do not know this book. But I think it is highly
probable that in its essence it is not very different from similar
approaches.
And all these approaches suffer from the same weakness:
reproduction with inheritance (and recombination) is not
explained but taken for granted.
In a mathematical treatment one can assume any values
one likes for mean number of descendents, mutation rate,
survival rate and so on.
Instead of explaining that a highly complex organism
is able to create a very similar copy, it is only postulated
that an organism has a certain number of descendents.
Under such (finalistic) premises it is certainly possible
to get reasonable and instructive models of how new
characteristics can be propagated in a population.
Richard C. Carrier has once (in an email to me) reduced
the principles such calculations are based on to absurdity
by 'proving' that a colony of robots on the moon, which
were constructed in such a way that they are able to
reproduce themselves, could further evolve by mutation
and selection (independently from humans.)
> Let me repeat Wolfgang's old assertion and his new text:
>
> W>Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
> W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
> W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
> W>chance.
>
> W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
> W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
> W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
> W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
> W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
> W>again after having appeared by chance.
>
> Wolfgang's old assertion and the first of his new assertions
> are inconsistent with each other. But Wolfgang is apparently
> trying to assert that "neoDarwinism" is self-contradictory
> with the juxtaposition of these two new assertions. IIRC,
> Fisher's 1930 text shows the fact that the incorporation or
> exclusion of a new mutation can be treated mathematically
> under a Darwinian framework. The first new assertion isn't
> about "claims"; the theoretical structure exists. If Wolfgang
> wishes to dispute it, he is welcome to point out errors in
> Fisher's math. Go ahead, Wolfgang, we'll wait... and
> wait... and wait...
You are right:
I claim that neo-Darwinism is self-contradictory.
As long as the finalistic principle 'reproduction with
inheritance' is not reduced to causal principles, I'm
legitimated to continue with all my claims.
So it is up to neo-Darwinists to show that reproduction
with inheritance can be explained in a purely causal
way (i.e.by chemical and physical laws combined with
chance events) and not up to the critics to show that
mutation and natural selection are not enough to explain
the continuous evolution or creation of life.
[snip]
Cheers
Wolfgang
Wostenberg
> I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
> chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
Like you I lack the faith of Darwinists. What interested me about your
short paper was the analogy 'Psychons do not change their identity
during evolution as human souls do not change their identity during
growth'.
Are you saying psychon is to species as soul to body? As the soul is the
active principle of the body, so the psychon is the active principle in
evolution. It is teleological, developing towards a goal. Interesting,
and not unlike St. Augustine's "seeds of potency".
The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare from
Neo-darwinists. Is your answer: psychon?
-Alan Wostenbeg
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> z@z wrote:
>
> > I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
> > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>
A possible, but somewhat unusual use of the world "faith". Perhaps "trust"
would be better.
No matter, as long as you understand it is the same faith than the one of
Leverrier in Newton's equations which led him to predict a yet unobserved
planet. Or the one of Pauli in energy conservation which led him to predict
the neutrino.
Pauli did not live to see his prediction validated; Leverrier's was validated
within 2 years, IIRC.
What interested me about your
> short paper was the analogy 'Psychons do not change their identity
> during evolution as human souls do not change their identity during
> growth'.
>
> Are you saying psychon is to species as soul to body? As the soul is the
> active principle of the body, so the psychon is the active principle in
> evolution. It is teleological, developing towards a goal. Interesting,
> and not unlike St. Augustine's "seeds of potency".
>
> The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare from
> Neo-darwinists.
Perhaps because the question tacitly assumes that every process has an agent.
IMHO, it is just like "When air moves, what is doing the blowing?"
The wind ? But what does the wind do in between, when it is not blowing ? :-)
HRG.
Is your answer: psychon?
>
> -Alan Wostenbeg
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
z@z
> > I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
> > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>
> Like you I lack the faith of Darwinists. What interested me
> about your short paper was the analogy 'Psychons do not
> change their identity during evolution as human souls do not
> change their identity during growth'.
According to panpsychism, not only humans but also simpler
organisms have in addition to the material also a vital aspect,
i.e. they have souls.
According to my theory the psychons (souls) of humans,
animals, living cells and enzymes evolve by reincarnation.
For instance the information for the complex behaviour
of many enzymes is not stored in the amino acid sequence
but in psychons (which are limited in number).
If you are interested, read also my short text:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
> Are you saying psychon is to species as soul to body?
No. A species depends on the existence of a certain number
of psychons with a common history. Essentially psychon
is only a synonym of 'soul'. But it sounds strange to speak
of the soul of an elementary particle.
> As the soul is the
> active principle of the body, so the psychon is the active principle
> in evolution. It is teleological, developing towards a goal.
I don't know whether evolution has any other goal than to
lead to more and more complex and conscious systems.
> Interesting, and not unlike St. Augustine's "seeds of potency".
Yes.
> The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare
> from Neo-darwinists. Is your answer: psychon?
Yes. At least to me this answer seems to be much more
plausible and testable than the one of Richard Dawkins :
selfish genes.
Regards
Wolfgang
Wostenberg
>
> In article <3718274B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > z@z wrote:
> >
> > > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> > > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> >
>
> would be better.
>
> No matter, as long as you understand it is the same faith than the one of
> Leverrier in Newton's equations which led him to predict a yet unobserved
> planet. Or the one of Pauli in energy conservation which led him to predict
> the neutrino.
I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
was the first to point out Darwinisms makes no predictions and is not
falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
of science who say otherwise?
> > The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare from
> > Neo-darwinists.
>
> Perhaps because the question tacitly assumes that every process has an agent.
> IMHO, it is just like "When air moves, what is doing the blowing?"
>
> The wind ? But what does the wind do in between, when it is not blowing ? :-)
The wind blows where it will. But let me make explicit what was tacit:
in every movement (change) is an active and a passive principle. For the
very term 'being' is an active verb. To inanimate beings like air
molecules are granted certain active causal powers. To man,
proportionally greater. To whom much is given, much is expected.
Now I am not reviving the niave vitalisms and finalisms of the past, and
I would question Wolfgang's reincarnation doctrine and monistic
pansychism (the idea that everything is to a degree, conscious). But
the world is soaked in teleology.
His philosophy of monistic idealism (everhing is mind) this Catholic
finds a refreshing respite from the tired monism of materialism preached
by Dawkins and the villiage atheists. All monisms are over
simplifications, but if one is going to err, better to do so on the side
of active principle (idealism) than the passive one (materialism). Would
you agree, my friend HRG?
-Alan Wostenberg
Wostenberg
>
> Hello Alan Wostenberg!
>
> > > I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
> > > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> > > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> >
> > about your short paper was the analogy 'Psychons do not
> > change their identity during evolution as human souls do not
> > change their identity during growth'.
>
> According to panpsychism, not only humans but also simpler
> organisms have in addition to the material also a vital aspect,
> i.e. they have souls.
I understood pansychism to mean everything is to a degree, conscious.
But if you are using Aristotle's conception of soul as the vital (vita,
life) principle then yes, everything alive is ensouled. But there are
grades of souls and not all are rational.
> According to my theory the psychons (souls) of humans,
> animals, living cells and enzymes evolve by reincarnation.
> For instance the information for the complex behaviour
> of many enzymes is not stored in the amino acid sequence
> but in psychons (which are limited in number).
>
> If you are interested, read also my short text:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
Will consider, but you are preaching to the choir if naysaying mere
reductionism!
OK I understand you to use not an Aristotelian but Platonic conception
of soul: a soul is a thing using a body as a driver uses a car and
discards it when rusted out to drive another one. Yes?
>
> > Are you saying psychon is to species as soul to body?
>
> No. A species depends on the existence of a certain number
> of psychons with a common history. Essentially psychon
> is only a synonym of 'soul'. But it sounds strange to speak
> of the soul of an elementary particle.
Understood. Agreed it sounds strange to speak of a soul as an elementary
particle. For the particles are not elementary in the sense of being
indivisible. They keep finding smaller thingmes, and there is no
evidence quarks are the end of process! If a thing is to be immortal it
must not be susceptible to destruction by being broken into parts. But
all physical things are made of parts. Therefore, the soul is not a
physical thing.
> > As the soul is the
> > active principle of the body, so the psychon is the active principle
> > in evolution. It is teleological, developing towards a goal.
>
> I don't know whether evolution has any other goal than to
> lead to more and more complex and conscious systems.
Think Bigger! A thing cannot give what it does not have.
> > Interesting, and not unlike St. Augustine's "seeds of potency".
>
> Yes.
>
> > The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare
> > from Neo-darwinists. Is your answer: psychon?
>
> Yes. At least to me this answer seems to be much more
> plausible and testable than the one of Richard Dawkins :
> selfish genes.
Agreed. Although you just helped me to see how his 'selfish memes' comes
dangerously close to idealism! A meme is not a physical thing, but a
thing that uses physical media to propogate itself. Clearly, a meme is
an information laden thingme, and information is inversly proportional
to materiality.
-Alan Wostenberg
Richard Harter
>hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3718274B...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > z@z wrote:
>> >
>> > > I will not repeat here what I have written in the short
>> > > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
>> > > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>> >
>> > Like you I lack the faith of Darwinists.
>>
>> A possible, but somewhat unusual use of the world "faith". Perhaps "trust"
>> would be better.
>>
>> No matter, as long as you understand it is the same faith than the one of
>> Leverrier in Newton's equations which led him to predict a yet unobserved
>> planet. Or the one of Pauli in energy conservation which led him to predict
>> the neutrino.
>
>I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
>things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
>was the first to point out Darwinisms makes no predictions and is not
>falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
>of science who say otherwise?
Popper as well as almost all others. You are aware, aren't you, that
Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
observation?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?
Mechanical Engineers build weapons, Civil Engineers build targets.
Wostenberg
>
> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
> >things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
> >was the first to point out Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
> >falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
> >of science who say otherwise?
>
> Popper as well as almost all others. You are aware, aren't you, that
> Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
> explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
> any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
> observation?
You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a metaphysical
research program'? When? What was his reasoning?
-Alan Wostenberg
Wesley R. Elsberry
Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
AW>I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious
AW>sense: in things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I
AW>believe Popper himself was the first to point out
AW>Darwinisms makes no predictions and is not falsifiable in
AW>the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers of
AW>science who say otherwise?
[...]
Popper said otherwise. See
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/popper.html>.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"rather had i been a starfish to shoot a heroic pentameter" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
AW>You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a
AW>metaphysical research program'?
Popper can hardly recant something he never said. The words
in single quotes are not anything I've ever seen in Popper's
work. Now, Popper did say that "Darwinism" was a metaphysical
research program at one point, and that is the comment which
he later recanted.
AW>When? What was his reasoning?
Take a look at the URL I provided earlier,
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/popper.html>.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"We're wise to your distance"-RR
Richard Harter
>Richard Harter wrote:
>>
>> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
>> >things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
>> >was the first to point out Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
>> >falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
>> >of science who say otherwise?
>>
>> Popper as well as almost all others. You are aware, aren't you, that
>> Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
>> explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
>> any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
>> observation?
>
>You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a metaphysical
>research program'? When? What was his reasoning?
I didn't say that. I said that he 'recanted' the view that 'Darwinism
makes no predictions and is not falsifiable in the scientific sense'.
These are not the same things. As to when, I will quote from John
Wilkins in
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/notes.html#metaphysics
Popper later 'recanted' his claim that Darwinism was unfalsifiable and a
tautology (which were related arguments in Popper's view), in "Natural
Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32(1978), pp. 339-355 ,
but it was rather weakly done.
If you are interested in the philosophic underpinnings of evolution you
should read the excellent series of articles by John Wilkins on the
subject. You may find them at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
|> falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
|> of science who say otherwise?
Popper, for one.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
z@z
[snip]
> > According to panpsychism, not only humans but also simpler
> > organisms have in addition to the material also a vital aspect,
> > i.e. they have souls.
>
> I understood pansychism to mean everything is to a degree, conscious.
> But if you are using Aristotle's conception of soul as the vital (vita,
> life) principle then yes, everything alive is ensouled. But there are
> grades of souls and not all are rational.
I agree with you.
> > According to my theory the psychons (souls) of humans,
> > animals, living cells and enzymes evolve by reincarnation.
> > For instance the information for the complex behaviour
> > of many enzymes is not stored in the amino acid sequence
> > but in psychons (which are limited in number).
> >
> > If you are interested, read also my short text:
> > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>
> Will consider, but you are preaching to the choir if naysaying
> mere reductionism!
>
> OK I understand you to use not an Aristotelian but Platonic conception
> of soul: a soul is a thing using a body as a driver uses a car and
> discards it when rusted out to drive another one. Yes?
I think that my conception of soul (or psychon) is more
Aristotelian than Platonic. The conception of soul which
comes closest to mine seems to me the one of Baruch
Spinoza.
A psychon is not using matter (or energy) as a driver uses
a car. This can best be seen in the case of photons. It is
impossible to have a photon without a corresponding
psychon, because not only the passive principle mass/
energy but also an active one is needed. For a photon to
appear, a psychon must act on a certain quantum of
mass/energy.
(That the behaviour of photons can be explained by
quantum mechanics is a big exaggeration.)
In the same way, it is impossible for an animal or a
human to appear and act without a corresponding soul.
> > > Are you saying psychon is to species as soul to body?
> >
> > No. A species depends on the existence of a certain number
> > of psychons with a common history. Essentially psychon
> > is only a synonym of 'soul'. But it sounds strange to speak
> > of the soul of an elementary particle.
>
> Understood. Agreed it sounds strange to speak of a soul as an
> elementary particle. For the particles are not elementary in the
> sense of being indivisible. They keep finding smaller thingmes,
> and there is no evidence quarks are the end of process! If a thing
> is to be immortal it must not be susceptible to destruction by
> being broken into parts. But all physical things are made of parts.
> Therefore, the soul is not a physical thing.
I do not believe in quarks. I suppose that photons, electrons
and protons are elementary particles. I have resolved, so I
hope at least, the divisibility problem in these two chapters
of the psychon theory:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a09
> > > As the soul is the
> > > active principle of the body, so the psychon is the active principle
> > > in evolution. It is teleological, developing towards a goal.
> >
> > I don't know whether evolution has any other goal than to
> > lead to more and more complex and conscious systems.
>
> Think Bigger! A thing cannot give what it does not have.
I explain the increase in order in nature by final laws of nature
(http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04). Such
laws can be 'explained' by some kind of causal effect
from the future. Maybe they even can be interpreted in
accordance with your principle: "A thing cannot give what
it does not have".
> > > Interesting, and not unlike St. Augustine's "seeds of potency".
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare
> > > from Neo-darwinists. Is your answer: psychon?
> >
> > Yes. At least to me this answer seems to be much more
> > plausible and testable than the one of Richard Dawkins :
> > selfish genes.
>
> Agreed. Although you just helped me to see how his 'selfish memes'
> comes dangerously close to idealism! A meme is not a physical thing,
> but a thing that uses physical media to propogate itself. Clearly, a meme
> is an information laden thingme, and information is inversly proportional
> to materiality.
Regards
Wolfgang
Thomas Scharle
|> Richard Harter wrote:
|> >
|> > Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|>
|> > >I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
|> > >falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
|> > >of science who say otherwise?
|> >
|> > Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
|> > explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
|> > any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
|> > observation?
|>
|> You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a metaphysical
|> research program'? When? What was his reasoning?
Are there any modern philosophers of science (including Popper)
who say (or said) that Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
falsifiable in the scientific sense?
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3718274B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > z@z wrote:
> > >
> > > > chapter "Causal and Final Laws of Nature":
> > > > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> > >
> >
> > A possible, but somewhat unusual use of the world "faith". Perhaps "trust"
> > would be better.
> >
> > No matter, as long as you understand it is the same faith than the one of
> > Leverrier in Newton's equations which led him to predict a yet unobserved
> > planet. Or the one of Pauli in energy conservation which led him to predict
> > the neutrino.
>
> things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
> falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
> of science who say otherwise?
See Richard Harter's response to your thread (which I saw first. Being in a
different time zone and posting via dejanews causes delays and completely
scrambles the chronal order in which I get to read posts).
> > > The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare from
> > > Neo-darwinists.
> >
> > Perhaps because the question tacitly assumes that every process has an
agent.
> > IMHO, it is just like "When air moves, what is doing the blowing?"
> >
> > The wind ? But what does the wind do in between, when it is not blowing ?
:-)
>
> The wind blows where it will. But let me make explicit what was tacit:
> in every movement (change) is an active and a passive principle. For the
> very term 'being' is an active verb.
Please explain. I always thought that to treat "be", "exist" or "existing"
like other verbs or properties lead to ontological fallacies like Anselm's.
What is the active principle behind radioactive decay (the bete noire of
causality ;-) ) ?
> To inanimate beings like air
> molecules are granted certain active causal powers. To man,
> proportionally greater. To whom much is given, much is expected.
Let me reserve my opinion about "granted", "given" and "expected".
Insufficient evidence ...
> Now I am not reviving the niave vitalisms and finalisms of the past, and
> I would question Wolfgang's reincarnation doctrine and monistic
> pansychism (the idea that everything is to a degree, conscious).
I would, too. Vigorously. Consciousness seems to require some very complex
hardware (see Robert Heinlein's "The moon is a harsh mistress" and its
conscious computer Mike.... :-)).
> But
> the world is soaked in teleology.
True. But IMHO it is *us* - mankind - who are doing the soaking and we have
been doing so for centuries. Only recently some necessary de-soaking and
drying has been performed.
> His philosophy of monistic idealism (everhing is mind) this Catholic
> finds a refreshing respite from the tired monism of materialism preached
> by Dawkins and the villiage atheists.
Personally I do prefer dualism. We have 1) matter and 2) processes running on
matter. Err... it may not be what you and most philosophers understand by
dualism ....
> All monisms are over
> simplifications, but if one is going to err, better to do so on the side
> of active principle (idealism) than the passive one (materialism).
I don't understand this attribution of active/passive yet, but I'm sure you
wil explain it .... :-)
> Would
> you agree, my friend HRG?
As I just wrote to you in another post: between not believing true things and
believing false things, I definitely prefer the first. But in this, Friend
Alan, you like everyone have to make your personal choice ....
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
> -Alan Wostenberg
maff91
>Richard Harter wrote:
>>
>> Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
>> >things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
>> >was the first to point out Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
>> >falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
>> >of science who say otherwise?
>>
>> Popper as well as almost all others. You are aware, aren't you, that
>> Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
>> explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
>> any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
>> observation?
>
>You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a metaphysical
>research program'? When? What was his reasoning?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_popper.html
>
>-Alan Wostenberg
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
|> things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
If that is what you mean by faith, then there are a lot of
"faiths" out there. There are the "faith" in quarks, the "faith"
in the interiors of stars, the "faith" in numbers, ...
It happens to be that the evidence for evolutionary biology
is accepted by a wide variety of people who belong to a wide
variety of religions.
John Wilkins
Scharle) wrote:
|iN Article <3718A9B9...@ix.netcom.com>, Wostenberg
<pf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
||> Richard Harter wrote:
||> >
||> > Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
||>
||> > >I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
||> > >things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
||> > >was the first to point out Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
||> > >falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
||> > >of science who say otherwise?
||> >
||> > Popper as well as almost all others. You are aware, aren't you, that
||> > Popper later concluded that his "pointing out" was in error and
||> > explicitly explained why it was in error? The question is: Are there
||> > any modern philosophers of science who agree with Popper's original
||> > observation?
||>
||> You say Popper recanted his famous remark 'evolution is a metaphysical
||> research program'? When? What was his reasoning?
|
| Are there any modern philosophers of science (including Popper)
|who say (or said) that Darwinism makes no predictions and is not
|falsifiable in the scientific sense?
|
Yes, I'm afraid there are (or were, at any rate). The late David Stove, a
first rate scholar of Humean studies, is one such in the vanguard of a
small group of philosophers who are in effect denying the scientific
validity of Darwinism, although the argument presented strikes me as
special pleading and is founded on a major ignorance of the science.
No first rank philosopher *of science* denies the scientific nature of
Darwinism or evolution - that is, the specialists who know about the
theory do not make this claim. One interesting book by Alexander Rosenberg
argued that evolution and biology in general is so complex we cannot
practically predict outcomes. This is, he argued, due to the fact that
cognitive creatures of our abilities could never compute the future with
that many variables. I hear from Michael Ghiselin that he may have
"recanted", but I know no more than that.
Michael Ruse makes a distinction between what he calls "scientific
Darwinism" and "metaphysical Darwinism", which I cover in the Evolution
and Philosophy FAQ at <http://www.talkorigins.org>>. Ruse is a bit weird
on this, IMO, but he doesn't deny the scientific status of the former.
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1994. Instrumental biology, or, The disunity of
science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Richard Harter
I don't know if you have seen _Keywords In Evolutionary Biology_, edited
by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd. The idea of Keller doing
such a book is a little off-putting at first but it is actually very
good. Briefly there are 37 authors who have written some 50 essays on
37 different keywords, a keyword being a term which names a central
concept and has or has had multiple meanings. Examples of keywords are
competition, darwinism, heterochrony, niche, and species. Ruse has an
article on Darwinism in which he makes the above distinction. The cast
of authors is star studded, Gould, Dawkins, Lewontin, and Kimura are
present among others. I'm plowing my way through it at present.
Perhaps I'll do a report when I am done.
John Wilkins
|wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
|
...
|>Michael Ruse makes a distinction between what he calls "scientific
|>Darwinism" and "metaphysical Darwinism", which I cover in the Evolution
|>and Philosophy FAQ at <http://www.talkorigins.org>>. Ruse is a bit weird
|>on this, IMO, but he doesn't deny the scientific status of the former.
|
|I don't know if you have seen _Keywords In Evolutionary Biology_, edited
|by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd. The idea of Keller doing
|such a book is a little off-putting at first but it is actually very
|good. Briefly there are 37 authors who have written some 50 essays on
|37 different keywords, a keyword being a term which names a central
|concept and has or has had multiple meanings. Examples of keywords are
|competition, darwinism, heterochrony, niche, and species. Ruse has an
|article on Darwinism in which he makes the above distinction. The cast
|of authors is star studded, Gould, Dawkins, Lewontin, and Kimura are
|present among others. I'm plowing my way through it at present.
|Perhaps I'll do a report when I am done.
It is an essential book for anyone dealing with the current debates (as at
c1992) and yes, I have it - it is rapidly becoming a well-thumbed book on
my shelves. That is one of the sources for my comments about Ruse.
[Keller, Evelyn Fox, and Elisabeth A Lloyd, eds. 1992. Keywords in
evolutionary biology. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.]
My favorite article is the one by Hull on individuals, obviously, since
I'm doing the species as individuals hypothesis. It's very nice for
upsetting the "obvious intuitions" about what constitutes a biological
entity.
What have you got against Keller, other than her misreading of Darwin's
Being in _Refiguring life_?
[Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Refiguring life: metaphors of twentieth-century
biology. New York: Columbia University Press.]
Richard Harter
It's been quite some time since I've read it but I recall _Reflections
on Gender and Science_ as being pretty dubious. I haven't read _A
Feeling For The Organism_ but the reviews fairly consistently pointed to
a large amount of axe grinding. Her essay in this book is infected with
pomo jargon.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
I'm Baaack!! However, with a two week old and a two year old in my life, my
posting rate is going down severely.
courtesy cc to z@z due to my late relpy, forced by the terrible two (including
Brave Ulysses discover of the computers off switch).
In article <7f87p1$ekp$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>,
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hi Wesley R. Elsberry!
>
> [snip]
>
> > W>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
> > W>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
> > W>purposefulness and so on).
> >
> > And is thus comprised of applications of reductionist causal
> > laws, right?
>
> Yes.
>
> > W>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
> > W>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
> >
> > Really? Provide an illustrative instance for documentation,
> > then. If this claim is true, that should be a piece of cake.
>
> An illustrative instance of general relevance is the claim*
> that one, two or three point mutations can add enough
> information for a a new behaviour pattern of animals
This is not a claim of neo-Darwinism, at least not in this general form. 1)
neo-Darwinism works with both _existing_ variation in a population and _new_
variation generated by "mutations". 2) Mutations are _not_ exclusively point
mutations, fusions, deletions, internal duplications, unequal crossover and
exon shuffling all play a role 3) Behavior in animals and humans depends both
on genetic and environmental (including learnt[1]) factors in all but the
simplest organisms. Furthermore, behaviors are polygenetic traits. No
biologist would give such a blanket statement as stated above, not even
sociobiologists. It is true that in very simple organisms, like C elegans,
simlple mutations can change behaviors, and even within human populations
mutations of monoamine oxidase can influence behavior, but the evolution of
behavior is generally more complex than a "one-mutation -> new behavior"
model
> or a new surviving strategy of bacterias to appear.
Again, the claims of neo-Darwinism are not limited to point mutations.
> It is an empirical fact that simple point mutations can
> lead to the appearance of such new properties. If we
> interpret the concerned base pairs only as switches,
> then we must assume that the information for the new
> property was there before. But switching on a
> preexistent property is not enough to explain evolution.
However, if you interpret base pairs as switches, you are in serious error.
The base pairs concerned are _not_ switches. They are codes for structural
units in protiens, and changing a single amino acid can[2] have a profound
influence on the structure and function of a given protein.
Examples are: 1) Mutation of Alanine237 to a glycine in Beta-lactamase (the
enzyme that breaks down penicillin in bacteria) allows the catalytic cleft to
open more, and allows beta-lactamase to act on the antibiotic aztreonam as
well as penicillins, making bacteria with these mutations resistant to
aztreonam.
note that this represents a physical change in the structure, not the
operation of a switch[3].
2) Loss of His 297 converts mandelate racemase to muconate lactonizing
enzyme, where as loss of Lys 166 convets MR to galactonate dehydrase, these
represent fundamentally different chemical reactions due to alterations of
the amino acids in the catalytic cleft, not the operation of a switch.
3) Conversion of Aspartine189 in trypsin to glycine changes the specificity of
trypsin to chymotrypsin. This is due to a change in the physical structure of
the active site, trypsin substrates can no longer enter the cleft.
4) An E coli beta galactosidase (galB) can be converted into a lactose and
lactulose utilising enzyme by twp mutations enzyme by Aspartate 92 to
Asparagine and Trptophan977 to Cysteine. A third mutation allows the enzyme
to utilise lactobionate. Again this is due to changes in the physical
structure and chemistry of the cleft, not due to a switch.
These are just examples of point mutations. A deletion in a transposon
results in the production of a nylon hydrolysing enzyme. Duplication of a
kringle domain in the blood clotting enzyme plasminogen results in the
formation of the lipid binding apolipoprotein A.
In all these examples (and many more), changes in DNA sequence result in
changes in protein sequence and the three dimensional structure (and
sometimes chemistry) of these proteins. There is _no_ switching on of
pre-existing properties.
> Insofar as neo-Darwinism is supposed to explain the
> appearence of new properties, information must be
> created. But the information cannot depend on more
> than just a few one-step-mutations. (If the probability
> of one such mutation is 10^-6, the probability of three
> one-step-mutations is already 10^-18.)
Quite a bit of "information" can be produced by just one mutation, the
deletion event that generates the nylon-hydrolysing enzyme creats an entire
novel enzyme in one go. You can change the chemistry of an active site quite
rapidly too as shown above. I won't go into duplicate and pseuodgenes
("cryptic") genes as reserviours of mutations, that deserves a post by
itself.
You also negelect population sizes and generation times. The three mutations
that convert _E_coli_ galB to lactobionate utilization can be achieved in the
lab using no mutagens in around a year. When you have 10^12 individuals
reproducing every 2 hours, these mutations (and do) will turn up rapidly.
When you look at things like vertebrates you have large numbers of sperm (and
typically between 50-200 cell divisions to produce each sperm), combined with
a reseviour of genetic variation, is more than enough to drive evolution.
> It is, however, illogical (against reason) to assume that
> the information needed for the new property can be
> produced by one, two or three point mutations
> corresponding to less than 1 byte.
Then you have calculated your byte values for the DNA sequence incorrectly,
or are using an inappropriate mapping between the byte value of DNA sequences
in a message-transmission sense, and their resulting functional proteins.
(How do you score a new function in bytes?)
After all, we _see_ that two point mutations results in a new fuction for
galB, and one point mutation creates an entirely new function for
beta-lactamase and that an undirected 240 bp deletion creates an enzyme with
an entirely new function, nylon hydrolysis.
> So we must distinguish the following cases:
>
> 1) The *claim (see above) is an empirical fact.
> 2) The *claim must be a consequence of neo-
> Darwinism, if this theory is correct.
> 3) The *claim is inconsistent with the reductionist
> basis, neo-Darwinism is founded on.
>
> Therefore, the above *claim is not a consequence of
> the principles neo-Darwinism is based on, but at most
> a consequence from the belief that neo-Darwinism
> is the correct explanation of the continuous evolution
> or creation of life.
Since the the above "*claim" is not actually part of neo-Darwinian (or any
modern "Darwinian" theory since the "modern synthesis" of the 30's) the
entire question is moot. However, it is an empirical fact that simple point
mutations can produce proteins with entirely new functions. It is also an
empirical fact that selection will distribute these mutant proteins through a
population. This distribution is in accordance with neo-Darwinian
theories[4].
It is only one of the key works in neo-Darwinism, followed by the work of
Dobzhanzky, Seawall-Wright and Kimura. The point is that these models can be
compared with what happens in the laboratory and what happens in the wild.
Guess what happens when you do this?
> And all these approaches suffer from the same weakness:
> reproduction with inheritance (and recombination) is not
> explained but taken for granted.
There is an enormous body of work dealing with reproduction with inheritance.
> In a mathematical treatment one can assume any values
> one likes for mean number of descendents, mutation rate,
> survival rate and so on.
But succesfull models use _real_ values of mutation rates, descendents etc.
and compare thim with results from the lab and in the wild.
> Instead of explaining that a highly complex organism
> is able to create a very similar copy, it is only postulated
> that an organism has a certain number of descendents.
It's a matter of focus, population genetics is based on what we know
empirically about genes and their transmission. Molecular evolution deals
with the development of copying mechanisms. Besides, we know that an given
organism has a certain number of descendents (in a statistical sense by
measureing what happens in real populations), we know that not all of those
descendents will survive (and we know average survival rates from many
organisms), and we know that genes vary, and the aproximate rates that genes
mutate. This is enough for population based models.
> Under such (finalistic) premises it is certainly possible
> to get reasonable and instructive models of how new
> characteristics can be propagated in a population.
>
> Richard C. Carrier has once (in an email to me) reduced
> the principles such calculations are based on to absurdity
> by 'proving' that a colony of robots on the moon, which
> were constructed in such a way that they are able to
> reproduce themselves, could further evolve by mutation
> and selection (independently from humans.)
>
> > Let me repeat Wolfgang's old assertion and his new text:
> >
> > W>Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
> > W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
> > W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
> > W>chance.
> >
> > W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
> > W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
> > W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
> > W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
> > W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
> > W>again after having appeared by chance.
There is nothing in the principles of neo-Darwinism that require the latter.
> > Wolfgang's old assertion and the first of his new assertions
> > are inconsistent with each other. But Wolfgang is apparently
> > trying to assert that "neoDarwinism" is self-contradictory
> > with the juxtaposition of these two new assertions. IIRC,
> > Fisher's 1930 text shows the fact that the incorporation or
> > exclusion of a new mutation can be treated mathematically
> > under a Darwinian framework. The first new assertion isn't
> > about "claims"; the theoretical structure exists. If Wolfgang
> > wishes to dispute it, he is welcome to point out errors in
> > Fisher's math. Go ahead, Wolfgang, we'll wait... and
> > wait... and wait...
>
> You are right:
> I claim that neo-Darwinism is self-contradictory.
But you have not produced any evidence for this claim. The only evidence you
have offered is based against a cartoon version of neo-Darwinism, and even
then it is refuted by empirical evidence.
> As long as the finalistic principle 'reproduction with
> inheritance' is not reduced to causal principles, I'm
> legitimated to continue with all my claims.
What is wrong with DNA polymerase?
> So it is up to neo-Darwinists to show that reproduction
> with inheritance can be explained in a purely causal
> way (i.e.by chemical and physical laws combined with
> chance events) and not up to the critics to show that
> mutation and natural selection are not enough to explain
> the continuous evolution or creation of life.
There has been whole books written about this. I heartily recoment Watson et
al., "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" 4th edition, ISBN 0805396144.
Available in all good libraries.
[snip]
[1] As a case in point, bird song contains both genetic components and learnt
components. [2] As mutations can be silent due to the redundancy of the code,
or neutral subsitions of amino acids that can perform the same function, not
verey mutation results in a change of function. [3] Except in the existential
sense that all possible protein sequences exist _in_potentia_ [4]
Incorporating both "moderate" and "neutral" selection.
References:
Gillespie JH. (1991) The causes of molecular evolution. Oxford university
press ISBN 0-19-509271-6
McCarthy DL, Navarrete S, Willett WS, Babbitt PC, and Copley SD. (1996 Nov
19). Exploration of the relationship between tetrachlorohydroquinone
dehalogenase and the glutathione S-transferase superfamily. Biochemistry ,
35, 14634-42.
Lawn RM, Boonmark NW, Schwartz K, Lindahl GE, Wade DP, Byrne CD, Fong KJ, Meer
K, and Patthy L. (1995 Oct 13). The recurring evolution of lipoprotein(a).
Insights from cloning of hedgehog apolipoprotein(a). J Biol Chem , 270,
24004-9.
Babbitt PC, Mrachko GT, Hasson MS, Huisman GW, Kolter R, Ringe D, Petsko GA,
Kenyon GL, and Gerlt JA. (1995 Feb 24). A functionally diverse enzyme
superfamily that abstracts the alpha protons of carboxylic acids. Science ,
267, 1159-61.
Krishnan S, Hall BG, and Sinnott ML. (1995 Dec 15). Catalytic consequences of
experimental evolution: catalysis by a 'third- generation' evolvant of the
second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli, ebgabcde, and by ebgabcd, a
'second-generation' evolvant containing two supposedly 'kinetically silent'
mutations. Biochem J , 312 ( Pt 3), 971-7.
Ohno S. (1984 Apr). Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading
frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A , 81, 2421-5.
Petrosino J. et al., (1998) Beta-lactamases: protein evolution in real time.
Trends Micro 6, 323-327
--------------------------------
#44 Most original poster on TO for November 1998
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue, Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
In a rare break from the darstadly duo, posting once more.
On 17 Apr 1999 14:41:48 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Hello Alan Wostenberg!
>
[snip]
>A psychon is not using matter (or energy) as a driver uses
>a car. This can best be seen in the case of photons. It is
>impossible to have a photon without a corresponding
>psychon, because not only the passive principle mass/
>energy but also an active one is needed. For a photon to
>appear, a psychon must act on a certain quantum of
>mass/energy.
And the mathematics of this is? Can you predict the hydrogen spectrum
from your theory? How does this differ from the QM predicitions.
>(That the behaviour of photons can be explained by
>quantum mechanics is a big exaggeration.)
What are the deficencies of QM in this regard, how much better do your
predictions agree with the experimental data. If they are no better,
can you propose and experiment that will distinguish between QM
predictions for photons and your predictions.
[snip]
>
>I do not believe in quarks. I suppose that photons, electrons
>and protons are elementary particles. I have resolved, so I
>hope at least, the divisibility problem in these two chapters
>of the psychon theory:
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a09
No in the slightest. How do you resolve the existance of pions, muons
and kaons. Can you explain the particles that appear in even the
simplest proton-proton collisions?
>> > > The question 'what is doing the evolving?' we draws a blank stare
>> > > from Neo-darwinists. Is your answer: psychon?
Most neo-Darwinians would say "the population".
>> > Yes. At least to me this answer seems to be much more
>> > plausible and testable than the one of Richard Dawkins :
>> > selfish genes.
A psycon is more plausible than a "selfish" gene?
>> Agreed. Although you just helped me to see how his 'selfish memes'
>> comes dangerously close to idealism! A meme is not a physical thing,
>> but a thing that uses physical media to propogate itself. Clearly, a meme
>> is an information laden thingme, and information is inversly proportional
>> to materiality.
Uh, would you like to try that again?
>Regards
>Wolfgang
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Evan Thompson
> A psychon is not using matter (or energy) as a driver uses
> a car. This can best be seen in the case of photons. It is
> impossible to have a photon without a corresponding
> psychon, because not only the passive principle mass/
> energy but also an active one is needed. For a photon to
> appear, a psychon must act on a certain quantum of
> mass/energy.
>
So you believe in invisible, intelligent, subatomic fairies pushing around
all the elementry particles? It's exactly this sort of half-baked
pseudoscience "theory" that makes Ockhams razor so useful. For every real
particle you have an imaginary "psycon" (found in high concentration in
aether, engrams, Orgone energy, and phlogiston) controlling it- In a way
that makes it look like the particles are just acting by their own,
already known rules. Why not just cut out all the stupid psychons and be
left with a theory that explains everything just as well, with half as
many assumptions?
Why indeed. I guess it's because it's so much more fun to be the
crackpot, and know that you have found the key to the workings of the
universe, where all the members of the Scientific Establisment have
failed, and then you can fight their conspiracy to suppress the Truth (and
maybe even sell a few plans for Psychon Detectors through ads in the back
of Popular Science.)
Alas, the conspiracy has found you, and we've decided we don't like you
very much. Don't worry, our black helicopters are already on the way, and
you won't feel a thing...
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
> a car. This can best be seen in the case of photons. It is
> impossible to have a photon without a corresponding
> psychon, because not only the passive principle mass/
> energy but also an active one is needed. For a photon to
> appear, a psychon must act on a certain quantum of
> mass/energy.
Ethnology has a term for this kind of belief, AFAICT: animism.
> (That the behaviour of photons can be explained by
> quantum mechanics is a big exaggeration.)
Actually the theory that does the explaining is quantum electrodynamics, and
some of its predictions (last time I looked, i.e. 10 years ago) agree with the
experiment up to 14 decimals - the measurement accuracy. Looks like a
reasonable explanation to me ...
Oh, BTW, what is the prediction of psychon theory for the anomalous magnetic
moment of the electron (aka g-2) ?
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
<snip>
Eric J. Korpela
Wostenberg <pf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I refer to faith of Darwinists in the explicitly religious sense: in
>things unseen and in principle, inobservable. I believe Popper himself
>falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
>of science who say otherwise?
Popper may have pointed that out, but that doesn't make Popper correct.
The theory of evolution makes predictions. It predicts that species will
continue to change and environments change. It predicts that if I take
a bateria culture and subject it to an antibiotic, I'm likely to create
an antibiotic resistant strain of the bacteria. It also predicts
that geographically isolated populations of the same species will develop
different traits.
As far a falsifiability, what do you consider falsifiable? If I isolate
two populations in different environments and they don't change over the
course of a few million years or they both change in exactlythe same
manner, wouldn't that falsify evolution? How about evidence that separated
populations in the past hadn't changed to adapt to their environments but
had remained identical? Or evidence that camels developed on separate
continents simultaneously, don't share a common ancestor, yet are able to
interbreed? Any of these would seem to falsify evolution.
There are ways to measure change without watching it over the course of a
single lifetime. I assume you'd say that theories of stellar evolution are
unfalsifiable because we can't watch a star age over the course of a few years.
They fit the data. If data comes along that doesn't fit, well, it's time for
a new theory.
Point out some real scientific data that doesn't fit evolution and you've
falsified it.
But more than likely that by unfalsifiable you mean "You can't prove
[God,Psychons,Art Bell,Liberace,Yoda] didn't cause the changes." Of couse
you can say the same thing about any theory. I can't prove that [God,
Psychons,Art Bell,Liberace,Yoda] isn't providing the force that's holding
me to the ground. That doesn't make gravity unfalsifiable.
Eric
--
Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be
kor...@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped.
<a href="http://sag-www.ssl.berkeley.edu/~korpela">Click for home page.</a>
Donald C. Lindsay
>I believe Popper himself
>was the first to point out Darwinisms makes no predictions and is not
>falsifiable in the scientific sense. Are there any modern philosophers
>of science who say otherwise?
Well, Popper, for one.
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/quote_popper.html
A few predictions that evolution made/makes:
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/evo_science.html
--
Don
Donald C. Lindsay www.best.com/~dlindsay
z@z
[no snips]
| Hello Wolfgang,
| I'm cross-posting this to misc-health-aids, where you may get
| the chance to meet Steve Harris and discuss his article
| on HIV/AIDS (which you "analyzed" previously in talk.origins).
I tried to post my last answer also to sci.med.aids, because
you told me that Steve Harris is there. But now I suppose that
the addition of this newsgroup caused some problems so that my
post did appear on no newsgroup at all. (I checked it through
www.dejanews.com). Only after having eliminated the newsgroup
sci.med.aids my post www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465926708
was accepted by talk.origins:
| >Hello Tim Ikeda!
|
| >[snip]
|
| Wolfgang wrote:
| >>> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
| >>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
|
| I replied:
| >> Actually, Wolfgang, I think the following comments (which you've
| >> posted previously but never adequately defended except to repeat
| >> them again), illustrate the problem I see in many of your posts.
| >>
| >>> Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
| >>> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
| >>> thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so many
| >>> side effects that finally the immune system gets exhausted!
| >>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
| >>
| >>> If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
| >>> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
| >>> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
| >>> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
| >
| >
| >> Let's take that passage apart to evaluate any claims...
| >
| >> Sentence #1
| >> "Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
| >> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless)"
| >
| >> "Generally" is not the same as never. It is a risky to assume that
| >> the general case extends to specific cases. If we were to restrict
| >> ourselves to generalities, we might conclude that viruses, DNA & RNA-
| >> based, are harmless -- That's because viral specificity limits host
| >> range so that most (99.99+%) of the viruses you encounter in nature
| >> will simply do nothing to you (Likewise bacteria). Of course, run
| >> across a virus that is specific for _you_ and you'll find where
| >> generalizations fail. For example, feline leukemia viruses (FeLV),
| >> influenza viruses, & SIV are all retroviruses that are not harmless
| >> in many of their hosts. Nor is HIV, as far as we can tell. The
| >> comment, "retroviruses are generally harmless" is irrelvant to
| >> particular cases.
|
| Wolfgang comments...
| > FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
| > (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
| > some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
| > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
| > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
|
| mcoon discussed this in his talk.origins reply...
|
| >Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
|
| Oops! My mistake. *blush*
How can a person who monitored once an AIDS discussion
group commit such a mistake !?!
| >A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
| >their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
| >it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
|
| Retroviruses can survive as free forms, inside the cell and
| independent of the host genome, or tucked away inside the
| host's genome. There is no good way of predicting whether
| evolution will lead to attenuated forms.
|
| >> Continued:
| >> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
| >>
| >> (~ 100's of mg range)
| >> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
| >> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
| >> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
| >> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
| >> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
| >> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
| >> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
| >> HIV is no exception.
|
| > In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
|
| Big deal. What matters is the carrying capacity or the tolerance of
| the system to the pathogen.
I'm sorry, but to fight a constant quantity of 0.000'000'1 grams or less
of a retrovirus by around a daily gram of toxic substances is logical
nonsense.
That AIDS drugs are really very toxic you can see if you read for
instance the following site:
http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html
| > And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
| > system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
| > to death.
|
| Death occurred before AIDS therapy and happens in areas where AIDS
| therapies cannot be afforded.
|
| > There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
| > at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
| > of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
| > accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
|
| If it didn't infect and induce a failure of the immune system, the
| story might be different. Perhaps you'd only have to worry about
| liver cancer or shingles.
In almost all cases there are much more reasonable causes
explaining a possible failure of the immune system in HIV
positive persons.
| >> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
| >> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
| >> activity & etc.]
| >>
| >> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
| >> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
| >> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
| >> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
| >> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
| >> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
| >> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
| >> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
| >> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
| >> drug cocktails should be used.
|
| > How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
| > onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
|
| "Antiviral immunity" has been discussed before. HIV persists
| and is continuously expressed. Drugs may push the expression to
| close to (or less than) detectable levels.
In a human body many other viruses (and bacteria) are
continuously expressed without doing any harm. And as
far as I suppose, some of them reach a much higher weight
ratio than HIV.
| > What's about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused
| > by HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
| > Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
|
| Certainly. If someone did not have HIV, it would not be wise to
| take the cocktails.
If someone has HIV, antiviral immunity reduces the virus to such
a low level, that it is not wise to fight this remaining rest of
less than 0.1 microgram by drugs with many side effects.
| > HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
| > have been proposed by which HIV could harm.
|
| "HIV is not active"? That is, it has no effects at all on the
| metabolism or function of its host cells?
HIV is not active apart from replicating in some cells. Even
if it has a negative effect on the metabolism or function of
these cells, this is not very important because more than
99% of the T-cells are not infected.
| > I do not believe in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the
| > devil-like properties attributed such a totally incapable virus.
| > The less evidence that a supposedly fatal virus has any measurable
| > effects, the more astonishing and insidious properties must be
| > ascribed to it.
|
| >
| >> Continued:
| >> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
| >> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
| >
| >> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
| >> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
| >> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
| >> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
| >> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
| >
| >Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
| >
| >-------------------------------
| >
| > According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
| > such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
| > inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
| > trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
| >
| > One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
| > onset of the antiviral therapy.
| >
| > That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
| > more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
| > work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
| > the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
| > conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
| > brigade or an exhausted army.
|
| So how come people who go off cocktails encounter increasing viral
| titres and decreasing CD4+ counts?
That's not astonishing at all. If you stop the whip, an exhausted
animal (or an exhausted police force) will stop working. And if the
police force disappears after having been very active for some time,
then it's the right moment for criminals to appear.
Furthermore, nobody denies that it is easier for HIV to replicate
without anti-HIV drugs. It is, however, irrelevant whether there
are 0.000'000'1 or 0.000'000'001 gram of HIV in the body.
| Why would HIV resistance to
| antivirals correlate with higher HIV titres and lower CD4+ counts?
Probably because it needs approximately the same time for HIV
resistance to antivirals to appear as for the immune system to
get exhausted because of the side effects of the therapy.
| By your "drug induced immune failure model", wouldn't you expect many
| cases where HIV remained susceptible to the drugs (and fully repressed)
| but the immune system failed (say, CD4+ counts dropped)?
In theory yes, but HIV does not remain susceptible to the drugs.
The immune system failure, however, is neither influenced by
10^-9 nor by 10^-7 gram of HIV.
| But let's procede with the "whip" analogy. Could that "whip" also
| be a virus which perpetually infects cells of the immune system?
If you refer to HIV, this "whip" would be a whip weighing about
1 gram.
| There is a second aspect:
| [...snip...]
| > My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
|
| Great news!
|
|
| >> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
| >> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
| >> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
| >> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
| >> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
|
| > 0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
|
| What's mass got to do with it? HIV is not necessarily
| toxic by itself.
In order to have any negative effect, HIV must be biochemically
active. And the less HIV, the less reactions are possible.
| > 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
| > is murderous!
|
| Apparently it does reduce the likelihood of passing on HIV to
| newborns...
But instead of expressing a harmless retrovirus many of the
newborns suffer from deformities and other health problems.
| > A quote of Duesberg:
| >
| > "Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
| > years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
| > cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
| > become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
| > in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
| > herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
| > toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
| > that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
| > asymptomatic carriers."
| > http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
|
| I don't think HIV viremia necessarily kills patients directly. I think
| it contributes to the failure of the immune system which in turn
| allows other diseases to occur.
What Duesberg writes above, is very sound and is a simple
consequence of logical reasoning. It is the immune system
which reduces HIV to extremely low quantities. A failure
of the immune system therefore will lead to an increase of
HIV (and of other suppressed viruses).
| > In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
| > Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
| > technologies such as PCR.
|
| >> Continued:
| >> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
| >
| >> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
| >> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
| >> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
| >> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
| >> less than 200/mL..."
| >
| >> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
| >> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
| >> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
| >> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
| >> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
| >> the trials.
|
| > The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
| > In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
| > the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
| >
| > The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
| > The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
| > provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
| > all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
| > phase on a well-known pretext.)
|
| Odd that the immune system failure comes at about the same time
| that HIV resistance to drugs is observed. Wouldn't your proposal
| suggest that the resistance of HIV to antivirals would be immaterial
| to falling CD4+ counts?
If really "the immune system failure comes at about the same time
that HIV resistance to drugs is observed" then we must conclude
that it needs approximately the same time for HIV resistance to
antivirals to appear as for the immune system to get exhausted
because of the side effects of the therapy.
| >> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
| >> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
| >> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
| >> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
| >> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
|
| -------quote--------------------
|
| >And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
| >molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
| >blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
| >
| >The following quote is quite representative:
| >
| >"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
| >experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
| >and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
| >
| >20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
| >50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
| >
|
| Ah, here we go again. Wolfgang, it is extremely easy to
| convert factors of a thousand. This uL/mL thing is not a
| conspiracy; it is a matter of using convenient units.
|
| Do you realize that the units in the web pages you quoted were
| "mL" (milliliters), not "uL" (microliters)? You criticized
| Ian for basing calculations on information _you_ presented.
| That was what I talking about.
The dishonesty I criticize is the fact that "20,000 copies/mL"
are actually 20,000 /milliliter whereas "50-400 /mL"
are actually 50-400 /microliter. Is this so difficult to
understand? And this misrepresentation is quite representative
for the whole AIDS research. (You probably are yourself a
victim of such misrepresentations).
| [...snip...]
| >> Let's review where the comments stand:
| >> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
|
| >Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
|
| >> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new
| >> or unusual.
|
| >Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
|
| >> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
|
| >Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
| >harm caused by HIV.
|
| That is the claim of the HIV dissidents.
See once again:
http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html
Or:
http://www.nam.org.uk/atu/68part2.htm
This site reduces the HIV AIDS reserch to absurdity as it shows
that even the obviously therapy related side-effects can be
attributed to HIV:
"Dr. Donald Kotler, from the US, presented an overview of
wasting and body composition abnormalities that occur in HIV
infection. He discussed how HIV disrupts the body's energy
and hormonal systems, and put forward his theory of how HIV
itself may be a cause of metabolic disorders currently
attributed to protease inhibitors."
| >> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
| >> provided.
|
| >Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
| > cocktails.
|
| >> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
| >> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
| >> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
| >> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
| >> individuals.
| >
| > How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
|
| Personally, I feel that one of the best indicator of HIV's roles in
| AIDS come from those who carry mutations which appear to prevent
| HIV infection and subsequently do not succumb to AIDS.
The main purpose of this story may have been to associate AIDS
with the medieval pest epidemic.
HIV induced AIDS is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
| >> Second paragraph:
| >> "If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
| >> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
| >> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
| >> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
| >>
| >> That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
| >> so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
| >> Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
| >> claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
| >> to pathogen is clearly missing something.
|
| > I know this: nobody can be convinced in this world. The world is
| > in one's own head and it is almost impossible to change somebody's
| > head.
|
| >> I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
| >> "dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
| >> I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
| >> to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
| >> So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
| >> the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
| >> issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
| >> new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
| >> open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
| >> Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
| >> my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
| >> nobody would ever know...
| >>
| >> So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
| >> It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
| >> other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
| >> early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
| >> is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
| >> the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
| >> know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
| >> to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
|
|
| >Cheers
| >Wolfgang
|
| >http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
| >(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)
| >
| >We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as
| >possible!
|
|
| Regards,
| Tim Ikeda
| tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Regards
Wolfgang
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 22 Apr 1999 18:50:26 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Hello Tim Ikeda!
[snip discussion of drug doses to satisfy my server]
>I'm sorry, but to fight a constant quantity of 0.000'000'1 grams or less
>of a retrovirus by around a daily gram of toxic substances is logical
>nonsense.
Only if you don't know anything about rates of absorbtion, rates of
elimination, volumes of distribution and the affinity of the drug for
the DNA polymease.
Todd A. Farmerie has written a substantial post on this issue, rater
tha repeat this, I will use hios results, and refere you to that post
From Todds calulations in Message-ID: <3716B5...@po.cwru.edu> of
15 Apr 1999, One gram of AZT orally reaches a concentration of 0.48
microgram/ml in the plasma, which is approximately 1 micromolar, which
is about typical for enzyme inhibitor affinities. SO basically AZT
achieves the right concentration to inhibit the viral DNA polymerase.
[snip]
>| "HIV is not active"? That is, it has no effects at all on the
>| metabolism or function of its host cells?
>
>
>HIV is not active apart from replicating in some cells. Even
>if it has a negative effect on the metabolism or function of
>these cells, this is not very important because more than
>99% of the T-cells are not infected.
But those cells are critical immune cells, which are killed off by CD8
cells, which leads eventually to immune collapse
[snip]
>| Ah, here we go again. Wolfgang, it is extremely easy to
>| convert factors of a thousand. This uL/mL thing is not a
>| conspiracy; it is a matter of using convenient units.
>|
>| Do you realize that the units in the web pages you quoted were
>| "mL" (milliliters), not "uL" (microliters)? You criticized
>| Ian for basing calculations on information _you_ presented.
>| That was what I talking about.
>
>
>The dishonesty I criticize is the fact that "20,000 copies/mL"
>are actually 20,000 /milliliter whereas "50-400 /mL"
>are actually 50-400 /microliter. Is this so difficult to
>understand? And this misrepresentation is quite representative
>for the whole AIDS research. (You probably are yourself a
>victim of such misrepresentations).
As I've pointed out before, this is not dishonesty, but a simple HTML
translation error, not present in the original paper (which anyone can
look up) and is not typical of the AIDS research. (Or even really
relevant to the actual subject of the paper).
[snip]
z@z
| z@z wrote:
|
| [combining quotes from a couple of posts in this thread]
|
| > Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
| > of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
| > thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so
| > many side effects that finally the immune system gets
| > exhausted!
| > http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
|
| First of all, this web site says nothing about "very toxic substances"
| nor about the immune system getting exhausted. It describes a clinical
| trial in which a dosing regimen with three drugs did substantially
| better than a dosing regimen with two or with one. How can you justify
| referencing this site as if it supported your statement, when it does
| nothing of the sort?
I have referenced this site primarily because it allows to verify
my figures. Here two quotes from it concerning the second trial:
"Adverse Events. Overall there was no significant difference
in the occurrence of side effects between treatment groups.
Twenty percent of patients experienced severe side effects.
The most common were non-specific discomfort, malaise, fever,
headache, nausea and vomiting. More neutropenia was observed
in the dual therapy group 15% versus 5%. Hyperbilirubinemia
was more common in the triple therapy group 6% versus 1%. Two
percent of patients in each group developed hyperglycaemia.
Nephrolithiasis occurred in 4% of the triple therapy group
and 1% of the dual therapy group however this mainly occurred
in the later group after patients had switched to open label
indinavir."
The positive effects only consist in a reduction in plasma
viral load:
"There were sustained decreases in plasma HIV viral load from
baseline in the two treatment groups however the responses
were superior in those patients receiving triple combination
therapy. At week 40 the reduction in plasma viral load from
baseline in the triple versus dual combination therapy groups
was 2.1 log and 1.0 log copies/mL respectively. Similarly at
week 24, the percentage of patients with undetectable viral
loads was 60% and 9% respectively."
I do not know what 'the reduction was 2.1 log and 1.0 log
copies/mL' means (is it maybe a reduction by the factors
10^2.1 = 125 and 10^1 = 10 respectively, as log 125 = 2.1).
However, if the fraction of a microgram of HIV is not the
cause of the health problems of the patients, then not even
a reduction of HIV to zero would have a positive effect.
| Now, since you continue to make the claim that this is a hugh dose,
| lets take a look at the pharmacokinetics, shall we.
[snip]
| Because the action of drugs does not depend on the mass which
| gets into the circulation, but the concentration.
[snip]
| When a patient begins taking a drug dosage regimen, the concentration
| in the plasma will increase rapidly at first, and then level off to a
| steady concentration (this takes about 4 half lives). From this point,
| as long as the dosage does not change, the average concentration in the
| plasma will not change. In other words, the patient is taking in the
| same amount of drug that they are eliminating (elimination for this drug
| primarily involves enzymes in the liver which convert the drug into a
| chemical which is biologically inactive), causing the concentration in
| the blood to remain constant.
[snip]
The result of your calculations concerning AZT:
| you get an average concentration of 0.48 ug/ml.
We can make a similar calculation for HIV (elimination for this
virus primarily involves cells and enzymes of the immune system).
A virus load above 20,000 copies/mL is considered high. The weight
of a HIV particle is similar to the weight of a water cube with
a side length of 0.1 micrometer which is 10^-9 microgram. 20,000
copies/mL therefore are weighing 0.000'02 ug/ml.
So the average concentration of AZT is around ten thousand times
higher than the concentration of HIV.
| (This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
| of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
| across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
| of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
| undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
| polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
| concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
| other drugs.)
Analogous remarks can be made on HIV. Furthermore, a substantial
part of the viral material either comes from the host cell or cannot
be toxic for other reasons.
The many side effects of AZT and similar drugs, however, show that
their concentration at undesired sites of actions is substantial:
http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html
A quote from this text on bone marrow suppression:
"Some anti-HIV drugs like AZT can damage the body's bone marrow,
where new blood cells are made. When the bone marrow is damaged,
it does not make as many new blood cells. Bone marrow suppression
can lead to anemia (abnormally low red blood cells), leukopenia
(abnormally low white blood cells), and other abnormal blood
conditions. People who take anti-HIV drugs should get regular
blood tests to monitor the effects of the drugs on the body."
It sounds incredible that AIDS drugs destroy blood cells which
they should protect from almost inexistent HIV, but it is sad
truth!
[snip]
| And the typical plasma concentration of this drug [Acetaminophen]
| is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying your logic to this drug,
| this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible dose of thousands
| of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE of all of those
| headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches that causes
| millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen. (NOT!)
So the typical plasma concentration of Acetaminophen is around
six orders of magnitude higher than what is considered a high
(constant) plasma concentration of HIV.
We also can conclude that Acetaminophen is at least 30 times less
toxic than AZT.
[snip]
| > The evidence that SIV
| > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
| > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
|
| They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
| They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
| needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
| inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
| that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
| injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
| AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
As far as I know, these monkeys did suffer neither from the typical
AIDS indicator diseases of the European/American epidemics nor
from the ones of the African epidemics.
Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR and Nobel laureate):
"What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS".
http://www.duesberg.com/kintro.html
Many very different causes (e.g. cancer, radiation, malnutrition,
stress, persistent chronic infections) can lead to an aquired
immunodeficiency syndrome.
"Four rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were inocculated with a
homogenate of a cutaneous lepromatous leprosy lesion from a
mangabey monkey (Cercocebus atys). One died of B-cell lymphoma,
and another died of an immunodeficiency syndrome."
http://www1.omi.tulane.edu/cancer_center/pubs/lymsiv.html
The immune systems of monkeys having grown up in sterile
containers may not overcome harmless infections. In a similar
way as it is possible to breed cancer mice it is possible to
breed monkeys with a very weak immune system. In such a case
an infection with an otherwise harmless virus may lead to some
kind of immunodeficiency syndrome.
"And he talked about SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) which
causes illness in monkeys in captivity (though not in the wild).
He did not, however talk about HIV in monkeys, which would have
been more relevant, but would have weakened his case. In fact,
chimpanzees were injected with HIV over ten years ago; they
became infected, as evidenced by the formation of antibodies;
and nevertheless they remain perfectly healthy."
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/aaasp.html
[big snip]
Cheers
Wolfgang
Thread history backwards:
www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=466989444 (T.A.Farmerie)
www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465926708 (z@z)
www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465305208 (Tim Ikeda)
www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465112076 (z@z)
www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=464919003 (Tim Ikeda)
Todd A. Farmerie
> The result of your calculations concerning AZT:
>
> | you get an average concentration of 0.48 ug/ml.
>
> We can make a similar calculation for HIV (elimination for this
> virus primarily involves cells and enzymes of the immune system).
> A virus load above 20,000 copies/mL is considered high. The weight
> of a HIV particle is similar to the weight of a water cube with
> a side length of 0.1 micrometer which is 10^-9 microgram. 20,000
> copies/mL therefore are weighing 0.000'02 ug/ml.
>
> So the average concentration of AZT is around ten thousand times
> higher than the concentration of HIV.
Which is entirely irrelevant. The mechanism of action of AZT is
concentration dependant. The mechanism of action of HIV is not.
> | (This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
> | of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
> | across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
> | of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
> | undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
> | polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
> | concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
> | other drugs.)
>
> Analogous remarks can be made on HIV. Furthermore, a substantial
> part of the viral material either comes from the host cell or cannot
> be toxic for other reasons.
HIV does not work through toxicity.
> | And the typical plasma concentration of this drug [Acetaminophen]
> | is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying your logic to this drug,
> | this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible dose of thousands
> | of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE of all of those
> | headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches that causes
> | millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen. (NOT!)
>
> So the typical plasma concentration of Acetaminophen is around
> six orders of magnitude higher than what is considered a high
> (constant) plasma concentration of HIV.
>
> We also can conclude that Acetaminophen is at least 30 times less
> toxic than AZT.
We can do nothing of the sort. For that you need to know the TD50
(concentration at which 50% of the population experience toxicity),
which you do not. The dose used is a ballance between the effective
concentration (ED50) and the toxic concentration. You cannot simply
compare the doses and determine toxicity.
> | > The evidence that SIV
> | > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
> | > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
> |
> | They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
> | They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
> | needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
> | inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
> | that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
> | injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
> | AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
>
> As far as I know, these monkeys did suffer neither from the typical
> AIDS indicator diseases of the European/American epidemics nor
> from the ones of the African epidemics.
I see, the old impossible standard. SIV doesn't cause AIDS in monkeys
because monkeys are different than humans. Brilliant.
>
> Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR and Nobel laureate):
Nobel laureate because he reinvented a technique for making a lot of DNA
fast. That gives him absolutely no credibility when pontificating about
simian virology - none. He has always made a big deal out of bucking
the system, and that is all he is doing here (other than embarassing the
Nobel committee).
> "And he talked about SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) which
> causes illness in monkeys in captivity (though not in the wild).
> He did not, however talk about HIV in monkeys, which would have
> been more relevant, but would have weakened his case. In fact,
> chimpanzees were injected with HIV over ten years ago; they
> became infected, as evidenced by the formation of antibodies;
> and nevertheless they remain perfectly healthy."
> http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/aaasp.html
Why would you expect HIV to kill chimps with the same kinetics that it
kills humans?
taf
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
20% of patients experiencing severe side effects is not the same as
AZT and protease inhibitors being a "very toxic substances".
Tetrodotoxin is a very toxic substance, micrograms will kill you.
atropine from the poisonous mushrooms is very toxic, milligrams will
kill you, as will digitalis from foxgloves. Something that requires
multiple doses of a gram over many weeks to produce nausea an
discomfort in 20% of it's recipients is NOT "very toxic"
>The positive effects only consist in a reduction in plasma
>viral load:
And a significant and sustained increase in CD4 cell level, (quoted
directly above the viral load data, hard to miss) as well as 50%
reduction in progression to clinical aids and a significant reduction
in death rate.
Most people would count these as postive effects as well.
And there is no statement in this site that the side effects result in
immune systen exhaustion.
[snip significant fall in viral load quotation]
So the difference in masses has fallen by 100 fold, also, the _plasma_
viral loads are not entirely relevant, as you have to take into
account the viral load in infected cells (typically around 10^8 copies
per gram) even if there are only 100g of infected cells (this includes
T lympocytes, macrophages and folicular dendritic cells, I've excluded
the infected cells in the reproductive tract and neurons as I don't
have copy number estimates for those cell types), then you would have
around 10 micrograms of virus all up, vs roughly 5 micrograms of AZT
distributed in total body fluid.
Again, this is not particularly relevant, what matters is the
_affinity_ of AZT for the enzyme DNA polymerase. Affinity is a measure
of how tighty the inhibitor binds to the enzyme. Within limits,
irregardless of the concentration of the enzyme, what matters is how
strongly the inhibitory drug binds to the enzyme. If the affinity is
the the micromolar range, the you need a micromole of drug to get 50%
inhibition (and typically 10 times more to get 90-95% inhibition),
even if you have only nanograms of your enzyme. For amine hormone
receptors (such as the adrenergic receptors, a 10^6 discrepancy
between the mass of inhibitors, and mass of receptor is not unusual.
(See for example Metzler or Lehninger for details)
>| (This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
>| of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
>| across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
>| of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
>| undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
>| polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
>| concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
>| other drugs.)
>
>Analogous remarks can be made on HIV.
No they cannot. HIV polymerase is already present in the cells, you
have to achieve a concentration in the cell that is greater than the
_affinity_ of AZTTP for viral polymerase to inhibit it. The
_concentration_ of the viral polymerase is, within broad limits,
irrelevant to the inhibition of the viral polymerase. That is, it
doesn't matter whether there are 10, 100 or 1000 copies of the
polymerase present, you still need the same concentration of AZT (or
rather AZTTP) to inhibit them. This is a simple consequence of the law
of mass action, which is in every biochemistry text book I know of.
If the affinity of AZT for the viral polymerase is 1 micro molar, then
you would need to achieve an intracellular concentration of 10 micro
molar to inhibit 95% of the enzymes activity (this is relatively
independent of the concentration of the viral enzyme, unless there is
an enormous amount of viral polymerase). This is basic biochemistry.
Given that the concentration of AZT from Todds calculation is roughly
1 micro molar, and that there is usually between 20-100 copies of HIV
per infected cell (compared to around 20,000 copies per ml free in the
plasma), then the plasma concentrations of AZT are roughly right
>Furthermore, a substantial
>part of the viral material either comes from the host cell or cannot
>be toxic for other reasons.
This is completely irrelevant. AZT is directed at the DNA polymerase
of HIV, if you inhibit the viral DNA polymerase, HIV can't replicate.
end of story. The efficacy of AZT depends on it's intracellular
concentration and the concentration of the active meatbolite AZTTP,
and its affinity for the viral DNA polymerase. Not on whether the
complete HIV particle has hijacked some host DNA, nor on the mechanism
by which HIV bearing cells are killed.
>The many side effects of AZT and similar drugs, however, show that
>their concentration at undesired sites of actions is substantial:
>
>http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html
>
>A quote from this text on bone marrow suppression:
>
> "Some anti-HIV drugs like AZT can damage the body's bone marrow,
> where new blood cells are made. When the bone marrow is damaged,
> it does not make as many new blood cells. Bone marrow suppression
> can lead to anemia (abnormally low red blood cells), leukopenia
> (abnormally low white blood cells), and other abnormal blood
> conditions. People who take anti-HIV drugs should get regular
> blood tests to monitor the effects of the drugs on the body."
>
>It sounds incredible that AIDS drugs destroy blood cells which
>they should protect from almost inexistent HIV, but it is sad
>truth!
Even in the 15% of people who experience a drop in neutrophil level,
there was a significant return of the CD8 cells. Also, neutrophils are
not a target of HIV.
>[snip]
>
>| And the typical plasma concentration of this drug [Acetaminophen]
>| is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying your logic to this drug,
>| this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible dose of thousands
>| of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE of all of those
>| headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches that causes
>| millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen. (NOT!)
>
>So the typical plasma concentration of Acetaminophen is around
>six orders of magnitude higher than what is considered a high
>(constant) plasma concentration of HIV.
>
>We also can conclude that Acetaminophen is at least 30 times less
>toxic than AZT.
Aside from the fact that you cannot infer toxicity from concentration
alone, you have missed the point. You have been claiming that it is
"illogical" to use enormous concentrations of AZT to combat a tiny
concentration of HIV. Yet there are literally thousands of drugs we
use where the plasma concentration of the drug (or the oral dose) is
enormously, often 10^6 times higher, than the hormone or enzyme that
they are directed against. Examples include acetaminophen vs
cyclooxygenase, atenolol vs noradrenaline, prozac vs the seretonin
transporter, losartan vs angiotensin, and all the current monoamine
oxidase inhibitors. The reason is due to the kinetics of inhibition of
the active site.
The history of drug development is one of a search for selective, high
affinity inhibitors, for some systems, despite some effort and obvious
clinical utility, such as the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, we have
not found good high affinity compounds. It doesn't mean that thes
compounds do not work.
[more snips]
>| > The evidence that SIV
>| > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
>| > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
>|
>| They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
>| They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
>| needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
>| inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
>| that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
>| injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
>| AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
>
>As far as I know, these monkeys did suffer neither from the typical
>AIDS indicator diseases of the European/American epidemics nor
>from the ones of the African epidemics.
Yes they do. SIV infection produces subsequent AIDS in Macaque
monkeys. Tthese animals develop classic AIDS pathologies, such as
wasting, opportunistic infection and neurodegeneration.
Neildez O, et al. Selective quasispecies transmission after systemic
or mucosal exposure of macaques to simian immunodeficiency virus.
Virology. 1998 Mar 30;243(1):12-20.
Putkonen P, et al. Clinical features and predictive markers of disease
progression in cynomolgus monkeys experimentally infected with simian
immunodeficiency virus. AIDS. 1992 Mar;6(3):257-63.
Daniel, M. D., et al., (1985). Isolation of a T-cell
tropic HTLV-III-like retrovirus from macaques. Science 228, 1200–
1204.
Sasseville VG, et al. Neuropathogenesis of simian immunodeficiency
virus infection in macaque monkeys. J Neurovirol. 1997 Feb;3(1):1-9.
[snip rest]
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 24 Apr 1999 15:59:58 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
20% of patients experiencing severe side effects is not the same as
AZT and protease inhibitors being a "very toxic substances".
Tetrodotoxin is a very toxic substance, micrograms will kill you.
atropine from the poisonous mushrooms is very toxic, milligrams will
kill you, as will digitalis from foxgloves. Something that requires
multiple doses of a gram over many weeks to produce nausea an
discomfort in 20% of it's recipients is NOT "very toxic"
>The positive effects only consist in a reduction in plasma
>viral load:
And a significant and sustained increase in CD4 cell level, (quoted
directly above the viral load data, hard to miss) as well as 50%
reduction in progression to clinical aids and a significant reduction
in death rate.
Most people would count these as postive effects as well.
And there is no statement in this site that the side effects result in
immune systen exhaustion.
[snip significant fall in viral load quotation]
>
So the difference in masses has fallen by 100 fold, also, the _plasma_
viral loads are not entirely relevant, as you have to take into
account the viral load in infected cells (typically around 10^8 copies
per gram) even if there are only 100g of infected cells (this includes
T lympocytes, macrophages and folicular dendritic cells, I've excluded
the infected cells in the reproductive tract and neurons as I don't
have copy number estimates for those cell types), then you would have
around 10 micrograms of virus all up, vs roughly 5 micrograms of AZT
distributed in total body fluid.
Again, this is not particularly relevant, what matters is the
_affinity_ of AZT for the enzyme DNA polymerase. Affinity is a measure
of how tighty the inhibitor binds to the enzyme. Within limits,
irregardless of the concentration of the enzyme, what matters is how
strongly the inhibitory drug binds to the enzyme. If the affinity is
the the micromolar range, the you need a micromole of drug to get 50%
inhibition (and typically 10 times more to get 90-95% inhibition),
even if you have only nanograms of your enzyme. For amine hormone
receptors (such as the adrenergic receptors, a 10^6 discrepancy
between the mass of inhibitors, and mass of receptor is not unusual.
(See for example Metzler or Lehninger for details)
>| (This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
>| of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
>| across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
>| of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
>| undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
>| polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
>| concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
>| other drugs.)
>
>Analogous remarks can be made on HIV.
No they cannot. HIV polymerase is already present in the cells, you
have to achieve a concentration in the cell that is greater than the
_affinity_ of AZTTP for viral polymerase to inhibit it. The
_concentration_ of the viral polymerase is, within broad limits,
irrelevant to the inhibition of the viral polymerase. That is, it
doesn't matter whether there are 10, 100 or 1000 copies of the
polymerase present, you still need the same concentration of AZT (or
rather AZTTP) to inhibit them. This is a simple consequence of the law
of mass action, which is in every biochemistry text book I know of.
If the affinity of AZT for the viral polymerase is 1 micro molar, then
you would need to achieve an intracellular concentration of 10 micro
molar to inhibit 95% of the enzymes activity (this is relatively
independent of the concentration of the viral enzyme, unless there is
an enormous amount of viral polymerase). This is basic biochemistry.
Given that the concentration of AZT from Todds calculation is roughly
1 micro molar, and that there is usually between 20-100 copies of HIV
per infected cell (compared to around 20,000 copies per ml free in the
plasma), then the plasma concentrations of AZT are roughly right
>Furthermore, a substantial
>part of the viral material either comes from the host cell or cannot
>be toxic for other reasons.
This is completely irrelevant. AZT is directed at the DNA polymerase
of HIV, if you inhibit the viral DNA polymerase, HIV can't replicate.
end of story. The efficacy of AZT depends on it's intracellular
concentration and the concentration of the active meatbolite AZTTP,
and its affinity for the viral DNA polymerase. Not on whether the
complete HIV particle has hijacked some host DNA, nor on the mechanism
by which HIV bearing cells are killed.
>The many side effects of AZT and similar drugs, however, show that
>their concentration at undesired sites of actions is substantial:
>
>http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html
>
>A quote from this text on bone marrow suppression:
>
> "Some anti-HIV drugs like AZT can damage the body's bone marrow,
> where new blood cells are made. When the bone marrow is damaged,
> it does not make as many new blood cells. Bone marrow suppression
> can lead to anemia (abnormally low red blood cells), leukopenia
> (abnormally low white blood cells), and other abnormal blood
> conditions. People who take anti-HIV drugs should get regular
> blood tests to monitor the effects of the drugs on the body."
>
>It sounds incredible that AIDS drugs destroy blood cells which
>they should protect from almost inexistent HIV, but it is sad
>truth!
Even in the 15% of people who experience a drop in neutrophil level,
there was a significant return of the CD8 cells. Also, neutrophils are
not a target of HIV.
>[snip]
>
>| And the typical plasma concentration of this drug [Acetaminophen]
>| is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying your logic to this drug,
>| this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible dose of thousands
>| of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE of all of those
>| headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches that causes
>| millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen. (NOT!)
>
>So the typical plasma concentration of Acetaminophen is around
>six orders of magnitude higher than what is considered a high
>(constant) plasma concentration of HIV.
>
>We also can conclude that Acetaminophen is at least 30 times less
>toxic than AZT.
Aside from the fact that you cannot infer toxicity from concentration
alone, you have missed the point. You have been claiming that it is
"illogical" to use enormous concentrations of AZT to combat a tiny
concentration of HIV. Yet there are literally thousands of drugs we
use where the plasma concentration of the drug (or the oral dose) is
enormously, often 10^6 times higher, than the hormone or enzyme that
they are directed against. Examples include acetaminophen vs
cyclooxygenase, atenolol vs noradrenaline, prozac vs the seretonin
transporter, losartan vs angiotensin, and all the current monoamine
oxidase inhibitors. The reason is due to the kinetics of inhibition of
the active site.
The history of drug development is one of a search for selective, high
affinity inhibitors, for some systems, despite some effort and obvious
clinical utility, such as the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, we have
not found good high affinity compounds. It doesn't mean that thes
compounds do not work.
[more snips]
>| > The evidence that SIV
>| > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
>| > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
>|
>| They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
>| They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
>| needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
>| inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
>| that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
>| injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
>| AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
>
>As far as I know, these monkeys did suffer neither from the typical
>AIDS indicator diseases of the European/American epidemics nor
>from the ones of the African epidemics.
Yes they do. SIV infection produces subsequent AIDS in Macaque
behn77
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> z@z wrote:
>
> [combining quotes from a couple of posts in this thread]
>
> > Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> > of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
> > thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so
> > many side effects that finally the immune system gets
> > exhausted!
> > http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> First of all, this web site says nothing about "very toxic substances"
> nor about the immune system getting exhausted. It describes a clinical
> trial in which a dosing regimen with three drugs did substantially
> better than a dosing regimen with two or with one. How can you justify
> referencing this site as if it supported your statement, when it does
> nothing of the sort?
>
> Now, since you continue to make the claim that this is a hugh dose, lets
> take a look at the pharmacokinetics, shall we. Using the average dosing
> regimen provided in your reference, (and an average sized man, who will
> come in handy later) we end up with a gram of drug going in the mouth
> per day. What does this figure imply? Absolutely nothing, because for
> all you know most of it goes in one end and out the other. The oral
> dose is not a good indication of either the effectiveness or the
> toxicity of a drug, since both of these depend on the concentration of
> the drug at the site of action.
>
> First you have to take into account what is called the oral
> bioavailability - the proportion of ingested drug that actually reaches
> the bloodstream. In the case of AZT, that figure is about .63 (63%).
> Why is this the case? It is (mostly) because the elimination of AZT is
> largely through metabolism by the liver, and that is the first place
> that blood from the stomach goes, so 37% of the drug gets taken out of
> circulation before it ever goes into the circulation. (Note that if
> taken with food, the amount of AZT getting into the circulation drops.)
> Now you are down to 630 mg per day. What does this tell you? More than
> you knew before, but not enough to really know what is going on. Why is
> that? Because the action of drugs does not depend on the mass which
> gets into the circulation, but the concentration.
>
> So, what is the concentation of AZT in the circulation when taking this
> dose? For that, you need to know the Clearance. What is the
> clearance? It is actually a mathamatical construct which represents how
> quickly a drug is eliminated from the blood. It can be determined
> either from a calculation based on the half-life of the drug in the
> circulation (determined, for example, by stopping administration, and
> then measuring the kinetics of the decline of drug concentration in the
> blood) and the Volume of Distribution (determined by giving a single
> dose, and measuring the resulting plasma concentration, it is an
> indication of the binding and distribution of the drug in the body), or
> else from the equation we are about to use. The average clearance of
> AZT is 26 mL/min-kg, which when multiplied by your average 70kg man
> gives you 1820 mL/min, 109200 mL/hr, or 1310400 mL/day. What does this
> tell us? It gives us an idea relative to other drugs, and it lets us
> find out what we really need to know, the concentration resulting from
> this dose.
>
> When a patient begins taking a drug dosage regimen, the concentration in
> the plasma will increase rapidly at first, and then level off to a
> steady concentration (this takes about 4 half lives). From this point,
> as long as the dosage does not change, the average concentration in the
> plasma will not change. In other words, the patient is taking in the
> same amount of drug that they are eliminating (elimination for this drug
> primarily involves enzymes in the liver which convert the drug into a
> chemical which is biologically inactive), causing the concentration in
> the blood to remain constant.
>
> Thus: D/T * fo = Cl * Cave
>
> where D/T is dose/time (mg/day, for example), fo is the oral
> bioavailability, and the product of these represents the amount of drug
> getting into the circulation. Cl is the clearance, and Cave is the
> average steady-state plasma concentration. The clearance is a measure
> of elimination relative to the concentration, so Cl*Cave is the amount
> of drug eliminated (again, mg/time). Plugging in what he have from
> above, you get an average concentration of 0.48 ug/ml.
>
> (This is the plasma concentration, and not the concentration at the site
> of action. In order to act on the viral polymerase, it has to both get
> across the cell membrane, and have three phosphates added. The addition
> of the third ends up being the rate-limiting state, and AZTTP is almost
> undetectable in cells, and yet it is the AZTTTP which binds to the
> polymerase, and brings about chain termination. Still, this plasma
> concentration allows for comparison with the typical concentrations of
> other drugs.)
>
> Now I will do the same calculation for another drug. The recommended
> dose is 4g/day, its oral bioavailability is .88, and it's clearance is 5
> ml/min-kg. In your average man, that gives you a Cave of 13.97 ug/mL,
> or 30 times the plasma concentration of AZT. This drug, at this
> concentration, can cause severe symptoms in a subset of patients
> (particularly social drinkers with poor diets, who because of their
> illness have stopped drinking). It results in liver toxicity, and often
> requires emergency transplants in these patients. At higher doses,
> these symptoms appear in the general population, and without rapid
> intervention, results in liver failure and death.
>
> Are we talking about a pretty toxic drug, or what? And the typical
> plasma concentration of this drug is 30 times that of AZT. Now applying
> your logic to this drug, this "very toxic drug", given at the incredible
> dose of thousands of milligrams every day, this drug must be the CAUSE
> of all of those headaches, and it is the misplaced myth of headaches
> that causes millions of poor misled people to take Acetaminophen.
> (NOT!)
>
> There are several points to this exercise. First, that the oral dose of
> a drug tells you very little about the effective plasma concentration,
> which usually determines both its effectiveness and toxicity. Likewise,
> the dose of AZT is not a high dose relative to other common drugs.
> Finally, most common drugs can cause toxicity at some concentration, but
> that need not mean that they are not perfectly safe at lower
> concentrations, or that they should not be used, (or that they cause the
> illness they are used to treat).
>
> > The evidence that SIV
> > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
> > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
>
> They take perfectly healthy monkeys, and divide them into two groups.
> They infect one group with SIV, and just stick the other group with a
> needle (to simulate the injection of SIV). They don't give them AZT or
> inhalants or let them engage in anal sex, or scare them by telling them
> that they are going to get AIDS. All of the ones with the SIV
> injections get AIDS. None of the ones with the placebo injections get
> AIDS. What better evidence do you want?
>
> > A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
> > their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
> > it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
>
> The viruses don't sit on the porch drinking whiskey and strategizing
> about their evolutionary success. They infect cells and they
> reproduce. If the "lifestyle" of the virus ends up making more virus,
> then they will perpetuate themselves. If these new viruses infect other
> hosts before they kill off their own, then they will be successful. If
> one of them just happens to mutate in such a way that it reproduces and
> infects at the same rate but does't kill its host, then with time there
> will be more of that virus than the one that offs it's host. (That is
> how we end up with so many innocuous viruses.) This random mutation is
> not something that the virus has any control over, plans for, or schemes
> about. Rabies, in only letting those infected live a couple of weeks,
> represents the antithesis of your "evolutionary sense", but that doesn't
> mean that it is innocuous, and that the innoculation plus the public
> condemnation and fear is what kills those bit by a mad dog.
>
> > There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
> > at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
> > of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
> > accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
>
> You are again comparing a toxin with a reproducing entity. If each
> molecule of arsenic could make more molecules of arsenic, it would be a
> different story. On top of that, ansenic does not inhibit the processes
> that enable the body to get accustomed, while HIV both kills cells and
> inhibits the production of new cells until there aren't any more.
>
> > > This argument about
> > > relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
> > > drug cocktails should be used.
> >
> > How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
> > onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
>
> Probably because he is aware that the actions of a drug, both
> therapeutic and toxic, depend on the concentration of the drug at the
> site of action, and not the total body burden (mass) of the drug. Thus
> the relative mass of drug is NEVER relevant to its therapeutic or toxic
> effects (other than the duration), only it's concentration is.
>
> > What's
> > about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
> > HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
> > Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
>
> The relationship between the obvious harm caused by HIV and the harm
> (supposedly) caused by the cocktails is quite relevant. HIV will kill
> you without pharmacological intervention. The drug dose can be adjusted
> to minimize toxicity. Would you rather die, or not?
>
> > "These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
> > patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
> > NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
> > http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> > My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
>
> The new therapies including protease inhibitors developed to
> specifically inhibit the HIV virus protease, and these result in a
> better prognosis than similar regimens without the specifically targeted
> drug. What does this tell you about HIV and AIDS?
>
> > 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
> > is murderous!
>
> A plasma concentration of 0.48 ug/ml is not murderous, or even high
> compared to other drugs.
>
> taf
Todd A. Farmerie
Why? It is in a language my computer doesn't understand. Perhaps you
could give us some clue as to its content.
taf