The central ENIGMAS of neo-Darwinism
z@z
life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
explodes.
Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
objects selection can get rid of.
o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
(http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
emergence of life on Earth:
"They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
consciousness.
Cheers, Wolfgang
The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
J Eidsath
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
Reproduction is a fact. If there is a part of it you do not understand,
I'm sure someone on t.o. will be willing to explain the birds and the
bees to you.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
Yes, life is a requirement for Evolution. Those brain cells must really
have been working for you to have come up with that.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
>
> If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
> but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
> simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
> interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
> mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
> production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
But all we need is one living entity. Everything takes off from there.
The computer simulations are not trying to prove abiogenesis, rather
they are trying to demonstrate the process of evolution.
>
> Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
> as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
> emergence of life on Earth:
>
> "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
> They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
> of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
> RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
> 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
>
A type of natural selection. Not exactly the type invoked by the theory
of Evolution. What part of the experiment don't you like? They were
using replicating molecules (hence the millions of copies).
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
>
> Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
> is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
> abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
Abiogenesis is the process by which non-living matter became living
matter. Evolution is how living matter got its diversity. No sudden
change ever occured to seperate non-life from life. It was undoubtably
a gradual process. What is wrong with that? The distinction is a human
one made to seperate fields of inquiry. Both are historical sciences.
And there is only one history. Does there have to be a SUDDEN change
between the Dark Ages and the Renisannce?
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
> A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
> self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
> consciousness.
Define consciousness please. What do you mean by it?
Let me explain the history of the human condition. Nervous
system-->Little Brain-->Big Brain. What part don't you understand?
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
>
> The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
>
--
J Martin Eidsath
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull" . . . and it
*WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 --Dan Johnson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dick C.
Huh? Trying to argue about biology by using argements taken from
a lawyer makes little sense. And the arguements themselves make
no more sense.
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
The problem with the entire arguement is that both reproduction
and evolution happen. And natural selection has been shown to play
a part in it.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained?
If your parents haven't explained it to you, then I suggest you go to
a library and and ask for a book explaning sex.
The explanation by selection
> would be circular.
Circular? I don't follow here. Of course that could be Johnson's point,
trying to confuse the issue.
Reproduction happens. Natural selection works on the results of
reproduction.
That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
No enigma, that gets asked and answered constantly here.
>
> If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
> but reproduction with inheritance,
Huh??????!!!!!!!!!!
Half my children's genes are from me, the other half are from my wife,
their mother. That is heritance. Their traits come from those genes with
a few possible mutations thrown in. That is why the kids have traits
that appear in our families.
then one must wonder why
> simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
> interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
> mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
> production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
What does that mean?
>
> Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
> as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
> emergence of life on Earth:
>
> "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
> They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
> of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
> RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
> 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
>
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
>
> Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
> is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
> abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
What is meant by a continous emergence of life? And how in the hell
does that create an enigma?
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
> A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
> self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
> consciousness.
Why?
I see in these arguements a lot of assertions made by an ignorant
lawyer, one whose main claim to fame is a book or 2 devoted to making
court room arguements against evolution. Not scientific arguements which
is where the arguements belong.
Oh, you might be interested knowing that Phillip Johnson tried posting
here a few years ago, but left in a hurry.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
Have you _missed_ Ian's posting's on self-replicating polymers? Or are
you simply ignoring them?
--
"Apparently, the Wiccan Creed is evil because it runs counter to
mainstream Judeo-Christian military beliefs of truly loving your fellow
man by training to drop napalm on him."
Gene Douglas
z@z wrote in message <7ldifg$21s$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...
:The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
:life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
:to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
:living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
:relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
:
:However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
:on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
:within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
:explodes.
:
:Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
:the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
:all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
:objects selection can get rid of.
:
: o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
: would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
: Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
: (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
Reproduction can be explained if you also consider the selection of
chemistry. That is, molecules which reproduce themselves. If there are
say, a trillion-trillion events which do not result in this, then those
events have little reason to repeat. But if in that number there is just
one, then it continues to do so with 2,4,8,16, etc. copies of itself.
:
:If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
:but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
:simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
:interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
:mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
:production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
:
Not proof, evidence.
:Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
:as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
:emergence of life on Earth:
:
: "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
: They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
: of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
: RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
: 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
: http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
:
And in doing so, some were more productive than others. Some may have been
vulnerable to the elements, and some m ay not have had sufficient ambient
chemistry to continue at a great pace compared to others. Some may have
competed for the necessary chemicals with which to build replicas, at a
greater pace than others, and like crabgrass, crowded out those having
slower reactions.
:
:Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
:
: o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
: is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
: abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
:
Which happened where? There needs be a definition of "life." Then, the
first example which fits that definition would be a sudden emergence of life
from dead matter, which probably differed from its origin matter by a
microscopic degree.
: o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
: A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
: self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
: consciousness.
:
Again, we must define consciousness. Once we have that definition, then we
ask, does an amoeba have consciousness? Does an earthworm have
consciousness, and so forth. If we say that all irritibility equals
consciousness, then a mimosa leaf which folds when touched would have
consciousness. And so would a mousetrap, which also operates by an
automatic mechanism.
:Cheers, Wolfgang
:
:
:The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
:http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
:Everybody likes to tell jokes about lawyers,
but we must remember that some of the stories are true."
...........Attributed to Aristotle, 243 BC
--
Un-moderated UU group at: alt.religion.unitarian-univ.
Or use DejaNews portal at:
http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu%20/j.xp?j=soc_religion_uu
Remember Rich Puchalski, Gene Douglas, and (Your Name Here)
--
"Mind if I smoke?" "Not at all, mind if I fart?" (Steve Martin)
z@z
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism. If abiogenesis can
be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
The difficulty to refute reductionist abiogenesis lies in the lack
of concrete knowledge. The more concrete facts and explanations are
brought forward, the more difficult it becomes for neo-Darwinism to
survive.
Everybody should agree that the common ancestor of terrestrian life
must have had the capacity of reproducing and the potential of further
evolving by selection. In order to refute neo-Darwinism, I have to
replace the gaps in knowledge by concrete assumptions concerning the
neo-Darwinian Adam.
1) Adam was a bacteria-like creature with a cell wall.
2) Adam contained 10 different enzymes consisting of each 100 amino
acids.
3) The genome of Adam consisted of 10 x 100 x 3 = 3000 nucleotides.
4) There were 100 copies of each enzyme within Adam.
5) Adam lived in a primordial pond with high proportions of
prefabricated amino acids, nucleotides and high energy molecules.
6) These nutrient molecules and waste molecules could easily cross
the cell wall.
7) The cell wall protected Adam from harmful molecules.
8) The replication of Adam occured by
a) doubling the number of each enzyme from 100 to 200,
b) doubling the genome molecule(s),
c) splitting the cell into two equal parts by randomly
distributing enzymes and genome molecules to the parts.
If we ignore the cell wall, we conclude that 103'000 chemical uphill
reactions had to be carried out for Adam to replicate. It is perfectly
natural that the enzymes of very early life on earth could not have
worked as efficiently as the enzymes of modern bacteria. Error
correcting mechanisms did not yet exist.
So I think it is reasonable to assume that the error rate in building
chemical bonds was not lower than 1 percent. The task of chaining
building blocks correctly by using templates and energy from other
molecules is certainly not trivial. An error rate of 1 percent leads
on average to 1'030 errors per replication, 30 of them in the
genome molecules.
The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
become extinct after some generations, unless ...
Cheers, Wolfgang
Evolution based on panpsychism (a philosophically elaborate
alternative to reductionism, advocated at least by Cusanus,
Paracelsus, Bruno, Kepler, Spinoza, Leibniz):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Michael Alexander
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism. If abiogenesis can
> be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
> up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
That is like saying that the Siberian-Alaskan land bridge theory is a
prerequisite to Native Americans existing. If the land-bridge theory can be
proven false then Geronomo never existed and all legends about him are
false.
The first living cell on earth came to be via some mechanism. We know that
is true, because cells exist on earth and the earth has a finite age.
Scientists may be wrong about where the first cells came from. I believe
that scientists are correct about what happened after the first cells
arrived.
The farther back in time you go, the less evidence there is. You use this
fact to attack scientists, but your attacks are unfair.
> The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
> have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
> or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
> degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
> become extinct after some generations, unless ...
We already know that modern day bacteria can overcome these problems. Why
do think that primative cells couldn't?
Loren King
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
> If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
> of cards folds up, ...
No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
Even if this turns out to be the actual origin of life on earth,
Darwinian and post-Darwinian evolutionary models are still fruitful
explanatory strategies (for scientists studying the origins of diversity
and the mechanisms of speciation, for instance). And the study of
genetics will be no different, in methods or findings, regardless of
whether the first life on earth was designed or not.
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
z@z
A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
the same arguments over and over again.
| > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
| > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
|
| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
and any theory based on them are refuted.
| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
| > of cards folds up, ...
|
| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
No abiogenesis ->
no life on other planets ->
no advanced civilization ->
no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
Ken Cox
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Who's been telling you these lies?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Adam Noel Harris
:Hi Loren King!
[meaning that Loren King wrote:]
:| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
:| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
:| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
:| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
:Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
:philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
:finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Right. And carrots are enormous spacecraft used to put satellites in
orbit. Psychons are the fibers which accumulate to form bellybutton lint.
Whee!
:Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
:with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
That is one possible mechanism for abiogenesis.
:If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
:and any theory based on them are refuted.
No.
[snip]
-Adam
--
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
Paul J. Koeck
z@z wrote in message <7lg90t$2dp$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...
>Hi Loren King!
>
>A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
>the same arguments over and over again.
You have a point, abeit a tiny one. Arguments are constantly
repeated by cretinists and intelligent folks alike. But so what?
Cretinists repeat their arguments because they're too dimwitted
to come up with anything new, but they sincerely believe that
repeating lies often enough makes the lies become truth.
More educated folk repeat arguments simply because they're
correct. Why come up with a new argument when the old one
is perfectly fine? Mere repetition does not invalidate a correct
argument any more than it validates an incorrect one.
>
>| > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
>| > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
>|
>| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
>| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
>| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
>| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
>Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
>philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
>finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Only to those with self-inflicted lobotomies.
>
>Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
>with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
Nope. No relation at all. But then, this is one of those oft-repeated
lies cretinists would have people believe.
>
>If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
>and any theory based on them are refuted.
Well, sure, but evolution isn't based on abiogenesis, so you've
just refuted yourself.
>
>| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
>| > of cards folds up, ...
>|
>| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
>| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
>| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
>| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
>
>The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
Well, there you go, you got one correct. Go have a party,
you should celebrate such a rare occurrence.
>
>No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
Nope, doesn't follow. Why do you discount the possibility
that your own deity did the biogenesis, and then left the
rest up to natural processes? Why couldn't that same
deity have started up the life-engine in multiple places?
Again, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of
life itself, merely the processes that shaped the current
species from the life that already existed. Geez, if you're
going to argue against something, you should at least
get it right first.
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
>
>I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
>not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
>abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Actually, they've never been together. But admitting that would
be admitting you're wrong, something a cretinist is incapable
of doing.
>
>
>Cheers, Wolfgang
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
>
>
Paul J. Koeck, #360
EAC MindControl Beam(tm) Operator #34529085783828-4875
EAC Tech - Personal Mind Control at a great price!
Volume discounts available.
Don't let reality hit you in the ass on your way out.
Only an idiot or a PromiseKeeper cult member would
think that my opinions necessarily reflect those of
my employer.
To reply, change Byte.Me to newsguy
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of
organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring.
But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline.
No.
It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
This is the *world view of some neo-Darwinians* and nothing else.
But neo-Darwinism is a scientific discipline and thus is bound to
attempt explanations without recourse to finalism (except as a
metaphor: e.g. Dennett's "intentional stance") or God.
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
"Basic principles" - such as ? Are they in any way different from the
basic principles of other scientific disciplines ?
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
>
> | > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian
house
> | > of cards folds up, ...
> |
> | No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-
engineering by
> | an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
designed
> | earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
> | could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion
years.
>
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
>
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
>
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
emergence of <> evolution of
life life
Leverrier did not need an established theory of planetogenesis either
in order to predict the planet Neptune, did he ?
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
Loren King
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat the same
> arguments over and over again.
I for one only return to arguments if earlier versions have failed to
convince.
>>> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
>>> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
>> I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
>> post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of
>> organisms that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their
>> offspring. But how those organisms first originated doesn't much
>> matter.
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline.
So you say (and keep saying), but I've seen no convincing argument
supporting this claim. If what you really mean is `a strong version of
ontological materialism and naturalism commit us to abiogenesis as the
origin of life', then why don't you just say that? Why invent
controversial meanings for terms that most people already agree on the
meaning of (more or less)? And even if you stick with your
controversial definition of "neo-Darwinism", you need to demonstrate
that Darwinian and post-Darwinian evolutionary ideas and models require
a stringent assumption of ontological naturalism and materialism. This
doesn't seem at all obvious to me.
> It is also a philosophical or religious system, based on principles
> such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be demonstrated,
not merely asserted.
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
Which "basic principles" of "neo-Darwinism" do you have in mind here?
Why do you think that evolutionary concepts and models depend so
critically on strong ontological claims about the possible origins of
life?
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
The simple fact is that specific the origin of life doesn't much affect
the efficacy of evolutionary concepts and models.
>>> If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
>>> of cards folds up, ...
>> No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering
>> by an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
>> designed earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so
>> that they could be left alone to evolve over the course of several
>> billion years.
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
The existence of reproduction and heritability of traits are essential.
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
Okay, lets say the designers where "supernatural": they were gods, or
trans-dimensional beings whose origins and capabilities are beyond our
feeble understanding (perhaps these beings have always existed, or maybe
they emerged in some freak cosmic coincidence in other dimensions, the
product of complex processes we will never understand). Suppose these
beings wandered into our time-space continuum a few billion years ago,
set a biology experiment running on a backwater planet, then left and
forgot to come back ... how would this affect Darwinian and
post-Darwinian models of evolution? How would it affect the study of
genetics?
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Well, now you know.
David Johnston
>
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Neo-Darwinism sounds like a bit of a strawman. Does it even exist?
Andrew MacRae
No. The scientific theory implies none of that. Those are what
some people philosophically or theologically (versus scientifically)
derive from it, but plenty of other people don't derive that from it,
eventhough they still accept the scientific theory.
|Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
|with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
|
|If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
|and any theory based on them are refuted.
Not unless it implies that life did not emerge by any means, which
does not fit reality.
|| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian
|| > house of cards folds up, ...
||
|| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
|| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
|| designed
|| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
|| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
|
|The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
Yes, but this does not have the implications that you think,
because, obviously, life does exist.
|No abiogenesis ->
| no life on other planets ->
| no advanced civilization ->
| no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
| no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
|
|I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
|not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
|abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
The two are related, and distinct, in much the same way as the
origin of matter versus the theory of gravity. Obviously, the theory of
gravity needs matter to act upon in order for it to have relevance, but an
understanding of the details of matter's origin is not a requirement to
understand or apply the theory of gravity in most situations. Masses
exist, and there is plenty of evidence they existed and behaved much as
they do now in the distant past. It certainly would be interesting to
know exactly how they ultimately originated, and scientists expend plenty
of effort on the question too, but not having an answer is not a
hinderance to describing the way they do behave now, or over most of the
history of the universe.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Michael Cooper
Spoken like a true ignoramus.
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> > How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> > would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> > Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
>
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
This is a construct of your own mind, for which you immediately give
your agenda in for constructing this strawman:
> If abiogenesis can
> be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
> up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
....IOW, hoping to invalidate an entire field of science and the hard
data it's based on by attacking an as yet underdeveloped field.
Drek.
Coincidentally, betting on what science will never learn is foolish. As
abiogenesis develops, I'm going to enjoy heckling you about this one.
<snip>
Michael Cooper
Yeah, sure it does. It's Darwinism, updated with all kinds of things which
we now know. And despite what anyone claims it has nothing to say about God,
Souls or Morality.
z@z
| > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
| > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
lies?" [Ken Cox]
There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
science only depends on empirical facts.
And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
Adam. Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
nature.
Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
are simply wrong.
Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
| No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
| materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
| demonstrated, not merely asserted.
Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
influence at all on the evolution of the world.
Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#epistemology
Loren A. King
> There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
> Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
> science only depends on empirical facts.
No one is disputing the fact that science requires philosophical
commitments -- or as you say, premises (I don't think this is the best
word to use, but whatever). The problem is that you've got the wrong
premises, and thus you are attacking a straw man. The philosophical
commitments required by science are provisional, and are open to
critical re-assessment according to the logic of scientific inference
itself. That's why science is so powerful.
> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
What does this mean? What evidence do you have for reincarnation? Do
you even have a coherent model to guide your search for such evidence?
If so, I haven't seen it (here or at your web site).
>> No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
>> materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
>> demonstrated, not merely asserted.
> Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-reductionist
> principles or entities to the evolution of life.
Where do you get this from? What do you mean by "non-reductionist
principles or entities"? And even if Darwinian and post-Darwinian
evolutionary models did `explicitly rule out the relevance of
non-reductionist priniciples or entities to the evolution of life', so
what? Before your assertion was that evolutionary explanations depend
on strong claims about how life *originated* (not how life evolved), and
that your claim was that this conceptual dependence is a problem for
Darwinian and post-Darwinian approches. Are you now arguing for a
different position (i.e. that evolutionary explanations require
reductionism)?
> It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on the one
> hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God, Souls or
> Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate on the other hand
> that such entities or principles have no influence at all on the
> evolution of the world.
Darwinian and post-Darwinian ideas and explanations do not have anything
substantive to say about the "God, Souls or Morality", save that
spiritual/supernatural mechanisms or entities do not seem to be required
to explain a great deal about the way life behaves on earth; nor is
there any reason to expect that science will need to draw on a
spiritual/supernatural realm to explain things in the future.
> Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
> "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because there was no "knockout blow." Nor do I expect to see one (at
least not in this thread). But who knows?
Dick C.
>Hi Loren!
>
>| > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
>| > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
>This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
>in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
>lies?" [Ken Cox]
>
>Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
>science only depends on empirical facts.
Please describe the philosophical and religious basis of science.
I am not denying there is a philosophical basis to it, but I wonder if
you have any idea what it might be.
I do deny the religious basis.
>
>And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
>that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
>Adam.
Fact? No, that was a religious belief, it was never a fact. Some
religious people might have considered it a fact, but then some
tend to consider any silly religious idea a fact.
Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
>created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
>exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
>which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
>nature.
Kepler had little, if any, reason to think differently. He was at the
beginning of modern science. He lived from 1571 to 1630, at a time
that the christian had complete control over Europe. There was
little, if anything, known to kepler that would contradict the bible.
>
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
Because the adam statement is taken from a religious text. The
scientific statement is based on observation, and why would
both statements be wrong? They might both be wrong, or maybe
one of them is wrong, or maybe one of them is not as accurate as
it could be.
>
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
Really? If it is so easily provable, why hasn't it been done yet?
And what is the reliable part of demographic data, and how
would that support your assertion?
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong,
No, it is not. You have not provided any reason to even begin to
consider that there might be an error in it, let alone that it might be
wrong.
>and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Except, that neo-Darwinism is not a belief, it is a description of
modern scientific thinking. And it is not a religion, there are no
churches devoted to it, there are no religous rights, no bibles,
none of the normal trappings of religion.
snip
>It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
>the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
>Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
>on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
>influence at all on the evolution of the world.
How is that inconsistant? It seems to be perfectly logical to me,
especially since both positions are brought up by people like you
all the time. Thus someone who is looking at science is forced to
discuss both, even though morality is irrelevant to science and
there is morality has no bearing on evolution.
>
>Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
>"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because noone has provided one.
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
WRowe0521
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
>
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Before anyone responds to this crap they should take a look at
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=477830371
where Wolfgang confesses:
"I must admit that sometimes I like to be a little bit provocative."
Bill Rowe.
z@z
| > Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
| > proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
|
| What does this mean?
Here an analogy:
Kepler could have written in 1609 that elliptical orbits of the
planets are a provable and even proved fact (by the reliable
part pf astronomical data). The scientific world, however,
accepted these proofs only decades later.
| What evidence do you have for reincarnation?
Plenty of evidence! Unfortunately it is very difficult to
appreciate evidence for something in disagreement with one's
own prejudices. What kind of evidence for reincarnation would
you accept?
| Do you even have a coherent model to guide your search for such
| evidence? If so, I haven't seen it (here or at your web site).
Have you really studied well enough the Demographic Saturation
Theory to make such a statement. If you have, you should have
recognized that the theory makes very concrete predictions. And
these predictions correspond much better to the really confirmed
demographic facts than the predictions of orthodox demography.
Here an example: in several European regions there are more old
women than old man (because of the war). Therefore the death
rate of women is now higher than the death rate of man. A simple
prediction of the Demographic Saturation Theory is that more
girls than boys should be born. The fact that actually more
girls are born is explained by a supposed or real loss in
qualitity of sperm, resulting from pollutants.
The Demographic Saturation Theory:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
Further evidence:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#demography
| > Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
| > "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
|
| Because there was no "knockout blow." Nor do I expect to see one (at
| least not in this thread). But who knows?
Here once again the "knockout blow" (maybe not yet in its most
convincing form):
The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
become extinct after some generations, unless ... "
Cheers, Wolfgang
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
No. Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from non-living matter, period.
It appears that evolutionary principles apply to abiogenesis. It is too
early to tell, however.
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
The hypothesis of evolutionary abiogenesis would be refuted.
NeoDarwiniam Evolutionary Theory would not be.
> | > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
> | > of cards folds up, ...
> |
> | No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
> | an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
> | earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
> | could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
>
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
The existence of life _on Earth_ is a prerequisite. We don't even know
if life exists elsewhere, or if it does or what form it takes, much less
how it got to that form.
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
Wolfgang, you would learn a whole lot faster if you would stop building
strawmen to fit your preconceived notions.
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Which should be an indication of how little you know about the subject.
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
g&g
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
"Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even proved fact"?
References please.
g&g
>women than old man (because of the war). Therefore the death
>rate of women is now higher than the death rate of man. A simple
>prediction of the Demographic Saturation Theory is that more
>girls than boys should be born. The fact that actually more
>girls are born is explained by a supposed or real loss in
>qualitity of sperm, resulting from pollutants.
Glenn R. wrote:
So sick sperm select for feminine? Why is that so? You do realize how
completely this appears to be. Also, you make a few statements here that
are completely inane. First off, because the death rate of women is greater
due to more of them in the population in no way means that individual sperms
should be aware of this fact and produce more women. That is just a
downright stupid argument.
David Johnston
>
> Hi Loren!
>
> | > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
> | > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
> in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
> lies?" [Ken Cox]
>
> There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
Philosophical, yes. Religious, no.
> Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
> science only depends on empirical facts.
>
> And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
> that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
You are unaware of the distinction between something being a fact
and something being believed to be a fact?
> Adam. Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
> created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
> exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
> which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
> nature.
Only if God's existence was detectable.
>
> Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
> like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
> from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
> are simply wrong.
Because one of them comes from scientific inquiry and the other comes
from a religion.
<