bio-evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object

11 views
Skip to first unread message

noshellswill

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 10:53:31 PM12/30/07
to
Gents:

Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.

But almost as bad ... Wikipedia has a curt discussion summarizing the
disagreement as to the OBJECT of selection.

".......
A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of
biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species)
that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been
intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which
evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different
levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of
selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves,
i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of
altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of
individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the
context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."

Pretty bad, eh for a chatty group of 'naturalist' pretenders to the
higher courts of understanding? The evolutionary material is presented
with all the pretensions of a science ( sociologists do that too ),
but underneath the "just-so" stories it's gutless - no robust dynamic
and no agreed-upon object.

For all we know, the actual "unit of selection" may be a single hydrogen
bond in some obscure sugar. Nice work Charlie, Dawkins will be proud of
you.

nss
*****

Treus

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 12:25:36 AM12/31/07
to

noshellswill wrote:

<snip>

Indeed. I've been observing lately how oddly unparameterized official
Darwinism is. Then again, it is a quaint Victorian legacy complete
with brass railings and velvet upholstery.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 12:55:21 AM12/31/07
to
noshellswill wrote:

> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
> verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.

Do I detect yet another engineer who proposes to overthrow all of
biology even though he knows nothing about it?

> But almost as bad ... Wikipedia has a curt discussion summarizing the
> disagreement as to the OBJECT of selection.
>
> ".......
> A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of
> biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species)
> that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been
> intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which
> evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different
> levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of
> selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves,
> i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of
> altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of
> individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the
> context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."
>
> Pretty bad, eh for a chatty group of 'naturalist' pretenders to the
> higher courts of understanding? The evolutionary material is presented
> with all the pretensions of a science ( sociologists do that too ),
> but underneath the "just-so" stories it's gutless - no robust dynamic
> and no agreed-upon object.
>
> For all we know, the actual "unit of selection" may be a single hydrogen
> bond in some obscure sugar. Nice work Charlie, Dawkins will be proud of
> you.

Perhaps you might consider consulting a textbook on evolutionary
biology, rather than getting all your misinformation from Wikipedia. I
suggest Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology. Read it, then come back
here with any questions you have left.

I'm afraid you objections don't make enough sense to me to provide a
proper response.

John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 12:55:15 AM12/31/07
to
Treus <treu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Try the New! Improved! Mathematical! version, circa 1922ff. You'll find
it parameterised to the wahoo. When you've done Haldane, do Fisher, then
Wright, Price, Hamilton, and then more recently Kaufmann and Gavrilets.
If you are a century and a half behind, it's no *wonder* you don't
understand what you attack.

Then come back and try to tell us there's no formal math in modern
evolutionary theory. As to this "Darwinism" of which you speak, no idea
what you are referring to.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 12:58:41 AM12/31/07
to
Treus wrote:

Indeed. I've been observing lately how little you know of evolutionary
biology. However do you find yourself in a position to comment on it?
Have you ever read a single bit of the recent primary literature? If you
had, you would have found plenty of parameters.

Bodega

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 1:06:20 AM12/31/07
to
On Dec 30, 7:53 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gents:
>

[snip[
>
> ".......


>When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of
> individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the
> context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."
>

A moment's thought destroys your premise. But then, any form of
thought for you is obviously very difficult.

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 3:06:02 AM12/31/07
to
noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real
> science,

No such thing is granted, but lackwit you are
welcome to blunder on as all creationists, trying to
make a point without a clue to use as a tool for the
task.

> lacking a
> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
> verbally stated concept of "selection".

Umm, perhaps if you'd bother to _learn_ the
probability theory in which mathematical discussion
of modifications of allele shares of population
slots for that allele were expressed, you'd find
there a rich and powerful set of mathematical
operators.

> That's bad enough.

That you are a lying imbecile? Why yes, it is.

> But almost as bad ... Wikipedia has a curt
> discussion summarizing the disagreement as to the
> OBJECT of selection.

You are well aware, but are trying to pretend
otherwise, that Wikipedia is a battle ground between
competing ideologies on any controversial question,
and carries precisely no citable authority on any
subject? Wikipedia is a good place to go to get
pointers to the real science, full stop. You'll also
have to weed out the pointers to the crank science,
equally profuse there.

So, no argument made about evolution whether in
favor of it or against it can find any comfort in
"Wikipedia says".

In the end, your posting was entirely comprised of
line noise. I hope you are happy with the time you
spent typing it. We are ecstatic with your expending
that effort here, that time was time you didn't
spend being an imbecile and an annoyance and adding
line noise to the postings somewhere important.

xanthian.

Undoubtedly, based on this small sample of your
thinking, you aren't _nearly_ smart enough to find
the barely hidden life lesson inserted for you here.

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 3:17:26 AM12/31/07
to
On Dec 30, 8:53 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science,

But then again....you disagree with the concept of tolerance because
[you believe that] it somehow involves accepting a violent society.


David Hare-Scott

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 6:00:31 AM12/31/07
to

"noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.12.31....@gmail.com...

> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
> verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.

...snip snip....

Backspace on drugs. Well it is New year.

Scary!

David


bob

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 8:08:06 AM12/31/07
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:53:31 -0500, noshellswill wrote:

> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science,

I am glad that you put this statement right at the beginning of the post,
it saves me from wasting time reading what will most likely be creationist
drivel.

Vend

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 8:46:39 AM12/31/07
to
On 31 Dic, 12:00, "David Hare-Scott" <comp...@rotting.com> wrote:
> "noshellswill" <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:pan.2007.12.31....@gmail.com...
>
> > Gents:
>
> > Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
> > fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
> > verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.
>
> ...snip snip....
>
> Backspace on drugs.

Don't they do him any good?

wf3h

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 9:51:36 AM12/31/07
to
On Dec 30, 9:53 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
> verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.

meaningless application of a concept outside of the relevant science.

the 'operator' is natural selection acting on variations within
populations.

is there a reason you don't know this THEN pretend to try and apply
your own views to science?


> ".......
> A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of
> biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species)
> that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been
> intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which
> evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different
> levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of
> selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves,
> i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of
> altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of
> individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the
> context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."
>
> Pretty bad, eh for a chatty group of 'naturalist' pretenders to the
> higher courts of understanding?

of course, we chemists are a higher court of understanding for
chemistry. and physicists do the same for physics.

relevance of your comment? or you just engaging your transmission and
running at the mouth?

The evolutionary material is presented
> with all the pretensions of a science ( sociologists do that too ),
> but underneath the "just-so" stories it's gutless - no robust  dynamic
> and no agreed-upon object.

?? seems to me the factor lacking here is the religious aspect of your
comments. since you're completely wrong about everything you've
stated, your agenda is rather obvious....enshrinement of ignorance
masquerading as logic.

r norman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:17:23 AM12/31/07
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:55:15 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

>Treus <treu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> noshellswill wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Indeed. I've been observing lately how oddly unparameterized official
>> Darwinism is. Then again, it is a quaint Victorian legacy complete
>> with brass railings and velvet upholstery.
>
>Try the New! Improved! Mathematical! version, circa 1922ff. You'll find
>it parameterised to the wahoo. When you've done Haldane, do Fisher, then
>Wright, Price, Hamilton, and then more recently Kaufmann and Gavrilets.
>If you are a century and a half behind, it's no *wonder* you don't
>understand what you attack.
>
>Then come back and try to tell us there's no formal math in modern
>evolutionary theory. As to this "Darwinism" of which you speak, no idea
>what you are referring to.

Your list is fine but surprisingly lacking in Kimura and Crow.

John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:32:16 AM12/31/07
to
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:

Possibly because I've never actually read Kimura, and I plain forgot
Crow.

Frank J

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:36:20 AM12/31/07
to

Greetings new person.

While others will answer your arguments against evolution, I am
interested in your answers to a few simple questions:

Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that
humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs?
Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of
the 4 choices - a best guess will do)

Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a
~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it
has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:47:17 AM12/31/07
to
John Wilkins wrote:

> r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:55:15 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>>Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Treus <treu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>noshellswill wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. I've been observing lately how oddly unparameterized official
>>>>Darwinism is. Then again, it is a quaint Victorian legacy complete
>>>>with brass railings and velvet upholstery.
>>>
>>>Try the New! Improved! Mathematical! version, circa 1922ff. You'll find
>>>it parameterised to the wahoo. When you've done Haldane, do Fisher, then
>>>Wright, Price, Hamilton, and then more recently Kaufmann and Gavrilets.
>>>If you are a century and a half behind, it's no *wonder* you don't
>>>understand what you attack.
>>>
>>>Then come back and try to tell us there's no formal math in modern
>>>evolutionary theory. As to this "Darwinism" of which you speak, no idea
>>>what you are referring to.
>>
>>Your list is fine but surprisingly lacking in Kimura and Crow.
>
>
> Possibly because I've never actually read Kimura, and I plain forgot
> Crow.

Surely it wasn't intended as a complete list. That would run into
hundreds of names, at a minimum.

noshellswill

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:44:15 AM12/31/07
to


BigT:

Exactly. You say it quicker and better than I. Unless the WWW is uniquely
deficient in the presentation of bio-evolution fundamentals.

For example if I'm curious about the current state of "photon volume"
or killing-vector issues ( whatever ) I can goto - say -
sci.physics.research and quickly find a couple BIG DOGS barking at
eachother. It's a tough read for any non-expert ( I'm a biophysics guy ) ,
but you study the maths, peruse the data and form your own understanding.

OTOH nonesuch sources re/ bio-evolution seem to be available on-the-web.
Just lots of "story-telling" and agitprop. On a few "serious" sites, the
bio-prof authors express a much more conflicted view of bio-evolution
fundamentals. I tried ( with a bit of 'flaming' humor %^/ ) to reflect
this in my post. Of-course the "children" were not amused.

nss
******

John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:49:41 AM12/31/07
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

Hey, you're the one who chid me for missing some.

I just think Haldane did almost all the heavy lifting. Everyone else was
commentating.

Bill Hudson

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 10:59:34 AM12/31/07
to
On Dec 31, 7:49 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > > r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:55:15 +1000, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John
> > >>Wilkins) wrote:

>
> > >>>Treus <treusd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>noshellswill wrote:
>
> > >>>><snip>
>
> > >>>>Indeed. I've been observing lately how oddly unparameterized official
> > >>>>Darwinism is. Then again, it is a quaint Victorian legacy complete
> > >>>>with brass railings and velvet upholstery.
>
> > >>>Try the New! Improved! Mathematical! version, circa 1922ff. You'll find
> > >>>it parameterised to the wahoo. When you've done Haldane, do Fisher, then
> > >>>Wright, Price, Hamilton, and then more recently Kaufmann and Gavrilets.
> > >>>If you are a century and a half behind, it's no *wonder* you don't
> > >>>understand what you attack.
>
> > >>>Then come back and try to tell us there's no formal math in modern
> > >>>evolutionary theory. As to this "Darwinism" of which you speak, no idea
> > >>>what you are referring to.
>
> > >>Your list is fine but surprisingly lacking in Kimura and Crow.
>
> > > Possibly because I've never actually read Kimura, and I plain forgot
> > > Crow.
>
> > Surely it wasn't intended as a complete list. That would run into
> > hundreds of names, at a minimum.
>
> Hey, you're the one who chid me for missing some.

That was rnorman, actually.

>
> I just think Haldane did almost all the heavy lifting. Everyone else was
> commentating.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

BTW, happy new year, John.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:03:59 AM12/31/07
to
noshellswill wrote:

It's unclear just what you're looking for. Evolution is a big subject.
Just what part of it were you trying to find the math to describe? And
have you considered the possibility that, even today, the web might not
be the best source of detailed information? I suggest that you go to an
actual, physical university library near you and look at some text books
and journals. I have suggested Evolutionary Biology by Doug Futuyma for
an overview. Depending on what you're looking for, several journals
would be appropriate. Try Evolution, Gene, Journal of Molecular
Evolution, Systematic Biology, or Journal of Theoretical Biology as a start.

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:07:49 AM12/31/07
to
John Wilkins wrote:

No, that was Norman.

> I just think Haldane did almost all the heavy lifting. Everyone else was
> commentating.

I presume you're referring just to the beginnings of "Modern Synthesis"
here, because there have been plenty of major advance since then. Even
there, what about Fisher? Now in fact I try to avoid population genetics
as much as possible, but your statement, even if highly constrained,
seems odd to me.

r norman

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:20:59 AM12/31/07
to
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:49:41 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)
wrote:

No, I was the chidist. Certainly Fisher, Wright, and Haldane were
the pioneers. But if you want to get really technical, Kimura and
Crow were the exemplars for quantitative pop-gen for me.

Roger Milkman, in a 1983 paper (Amer Zool Vol. 23, No. 1. (1983), pp.
123-125) wrote: "Even more recently, a group of papers have appeared,
notably Kimura and Crow (1978), Crow and Kimura (1979), and Kimura
(1981), which I take as a collective paradigm of successful population
genetics theory."

Incidentally, in the process of locating that quote, I came across
something that might be of interest to this group:

Population Biology of the First Replicators: On the Origin of the
Genotype, Phenotype and Organism
Richard E. Michod
American Zoologist, Vol. 23, No. 1. (1983), pp. 5-14.

Yes, it is more than 20 years old now but informed argument, even old
informed argument, is better than idle speculation which is the
stock-in-trade of this news group.


John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:37:22 AM12/31/07
to
Bill Hudson <oldgee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry, John.


>
> >
> > I just think Haldane did almost all the heavy lifting. Everyone else was
> > commentating.
>

> BTW, happy new year, John.

Thanks. I can't be worse than 2007 (he said, tempting the gods).

John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:37:24 AM12/31/07
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

Sorry.


>
> > I just think Haldane did almost all the heavy lifting. Everyone else was
> > commentating.
>
> I presume you're referring just to the beginnings of "Modern Synthesis"
> here, because there have been plenty of major advance since then. Even
> there, what about Fisher? Now in fact I try to avoid population genetics
> as much as possible, but your statement, even if highly constrained,
> seems odd to me.

Just trying to stir a response. I'm bored.

noshellswill

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 2:31:46 PM12/31/07
to

Frank:

Both the earths' ( old ) age and the biochemical similarity of all (most?)
living things is scientifically well documented. The datum for each
appears self-consistent and manifest, and various 'mid-level' quantitative
treatments of each have been established. Lurking behind each -- to squash
foolishness -- are the "superb" theories of g.t.r. and QM.

Yep, we read (many of ) the same texts, do similar calculations and may
each have performed ( a small number of ) experiments reflecting those
basic, true understandings. No issue, I'm a scientist by training and
buy-into the entire process.

Now, this bio-evolution thingy ... WHERES THE DAMNED LAGRANGIAN ?

... said to greatly oversimplify my discomfort. But 'just-so' stories do
not make a science.

nss
******


Desertphile

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 3:59:01 PM12/31/07
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:53:31 -0500, noshellswill
<noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gents:
>
> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a

Yeah, over 300 years of evolutionary sciences, and nearly 150 of
those years of evolutionary science being explained by
evolutionary theory.... doesn't "cut it." (ROTFL!)


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 6:43:13 PM12/31/07
to

"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1ia0my9.1bbngwc4mj725N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...

That is what I figured, which is why I didn't respond to your silly inclusion
of Kauffman (unless you really meant Kaufmann and he is a population
genetics guru I have never heard of).

Frank J

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 7:03:25 PM12/31/07
to

So I take it that your respective answers are "both" and "yes." If I
misinterpreted, please correct me.

As you know, classic creationists and most IDers have alternate
answers to one or both questions. Regardless of your assessment of
"bio-evolution theory," do you agree that they too have at best "just-
so" stories? Do you also agree that the ID strategy, in an effort to
avoid calling attention to demonstrably false creationist "just-so"
stories, has no official "story", as well as no theory?

>
> nss
> ******- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 7:39:52 PM12/31/07
to

"noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2007.12.31....@gmail.com...

> Now, this bio-evolution thingy ... WHERES THE DAMNED LAGRANGIAN ?
>
> ... said to greatly oversimplify my discomfort. But 'just-so' stories do
> not make a science.

There is no lagrangian because population genetics does not follow conservation
laws. A successful beastie has a variable and almost unlimited number of
offspring. This is possible (in spite of conservation laws in physics and chemistry)
because ecology occurs in an open thermodynamic system.

Suggestion: Get a copy of Sean Rice's book "Evolutionary Theory - Mathematical
and Conceptual Foundations". Then, having acquired a taste of what mathematical
models of evolution look like, pick up some textbooks on population genetics
and phylogenetic inference. Also, do some reading in the philosophy of science
so that you can appreciate that you can still do science without having a theory
permitting deterministic prediction of future state given present state. Hell, you
don't even have that in QM.

John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:11:39 PM12/31/07
to
Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...

Stuart Kauffman is a mathematical contributor to adaptive landscape
models at the least and if Gavrilets relies on him, I'm prepared to say
he's important.

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:07:35 PM12/31/07
to

Nice hand-waving there. I notice that you didn't answer Frank's
questions. "Biochemical similarity" just doesn't cut it as an answer.

You come across as an engineer who knows physics but not really much at
all about biology.

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 11:59:29 PM12/31/07
to

"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1ia1j3x.emzgi21mj2tgpN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...

Well, the only stuff I have read by Gavrilets is the book. Out of 30 pages
of references, there are exactly two references to Kauffman's work on
fitness landscapes. And, in the index under 'Kaufman' (yet another misspelling!)
you find that two pages out of Gavrilets 400 page book review work by various
people on the Nk model which Kauffman had originated. If you want to
call that 'relying' on Kauffman, go ahead. Personally, I would call it being
barely aware of his existence.

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 8:51:11 AM1/1/08
to

CA:

In context of my answer, the phrase "... biochemical similarity..." is
appropriate scientific "weaseling". It's not debate language. Who knows,
but 50 lbs of D-amino acid based creepy-crawlies might be found under a
rock in Uganda. Or suchlike.
I know of no theory that precludes it. In real science even "superb"
theories are constantly subject to experimental challenge, and conclusions
always stated tentatively. Good recent examples of these challenges are
the Bell Inequality tests of locality, and Double Erasure measurements.

Physical constructs with even the best theoretical foundation and
extensive experimental support are constantly challenged from and by a
thoroughly skeptic mindset. Counter-examples like foo-foo string theory
really stand out ... you know lit-crit science when you see it.

As for evo-biology having different ( I would say insufficient ) standards
of validation than real science I have no doubt ....

nss
*****

Ron O

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 9:18:48 AM1/1/08
to
> *****  - Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This all just sounds like bull pucky nonsense.

Just explain the protein "similarity." Consider chimp and human
proteins compared to gibbon. You don't have to get specific, just
tell us the expectations of the two more closely related ape species
(chimps and humans) to an outgroup species that is still considered to
ba an ape (gibbon). What is this protein similarity and how do we
analyze it? What does it tell us? What is your alternative
explanation for the data?

Ron Okimoto

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 9:33:13 AM1/1/08
to

Pip:

The existence of conservation laws is based on Noethers Theorem
(symmetries=equality under transformation-X), not the open-or-closed
character of some thermodynamic system. Running off to infinity to
(try-to) escape the 2nd law is really NOT a good idea; in-the-end you
just slam into a huge black-hole gravitational entropy which gets you
nowhere.
Besides there's a subtle issue of just how "open" a system even complex
bio-biologic chemistry needs, and when it needs it. Sure it needs a BB and
heavy atom nucleosynthesis. But after proto-life forms ( I won't push my
Arcturian Life-Pod model ... %^/ etc.) on earth you might get-away-with
system-boundaries somewhere just outside moon orbit. Then in equilibrium,
low entropy UV photons in, high-entropy IR photons out ( excluding
Prigogenes 2nd-entropy stuff ). Life sucks up the difference.

And of-course in QM the state-vector is deterministically propagated. As
to the future state vector ( after collapse ) you better be able to
measure the same value or science stops working. True, an ensemble of
state vectors will produce a measurement distribution after collapse or
entanglement.

nss
******

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 10:01:29 AM1/1/08
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:03:25 -0800, Frank J wrote:

> On Dec 31, 2:31 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:36:20 -0800, Frank J wrote:
>> > On Dec 30, 10:53 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

<clip>


>
> So I take it that your respective answers are "both" and "yes." If I
> misinterpreted, please correct me.
>
> As you know, classic creationists and most IDers have alternate
> answers to one or both questions. Regardless of your assessment of
> "bio-evolution theory," do you agree that they too have at best "just-
> so" stories? Do you also agree that the ID strategy, in an effort to
> avoid calling attention to demonstrably false creationist "just-so"
> stories, has no official "story", as well as no theory?
>
>>
>> nss
>> ******- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Frank:

As science, ID is pure baloney. Has no place in any science lecture
especially my own. I am excluding here my fav "Arcturian Life-Pod" trope.

BTW: I have no problem teaching (K-12) bio-evol as the " current best
available history" of life development. At university of-course you teach
whatever you are smart enough to get away with (AKA) whatever gets you the
next grant.

Anyrate, ID is for me even worse as theology/philosophy, since I favor
an Aristotelian "soul" which is existence, rather than a kind-of-thing.
I've had some rather sharp n.g. discussions on how Godels Theorem supports
this view (YMMV).

nss
******

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 12:24:25 PM1/1/08
to

"noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:39:52 +0000, Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> "noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Now, this bio-evolution thingy ... WHERES THE DAMNED LAGRANGIAN ?
>>>
>>> ... said to greatly oversimplify my discomfort. But 'just-so' stories do
>>> not make a science.
>>
>> There is no lagrangian because population genetics does not follow conservation
>> laws. A successful beastie has a variable and almost unlimited number of
>> offspring. This is possible (in spite of conservation laws in physics and chemistry)
>> because ecology occurs in an open thermodynamic system.
>>
>> Suggestion: Get a copy of Sean Rice's book "Evolutionary Theory - Mathematical
>> and Conceptual Foundations". Then, having acquired a taste of what mathematical
>> models of evolution look like, pick up some textbooks on population genetics
>> and phylogenetic inference. Also, do some reading in the philosophy of science
>> so that you can appreciate that you can still do science without having a theory
>> permitting deterministic prediction of future state given present state. Hell, you
>> don't even have that in QM.
>
> Pip:
>
> The existence of conservation laws is based on Noethers Theorem
> (symmetries=equality under transformation-X),

Don't try to baffle me with bullshit. The relevant conservation law for
constructing a Lagrangian is conservation of energy and the
corresponding Noetherian symmetry is invariance under a time
shift. What I am telling you is that biology is not invariant under a
time shift. A quantitative theory of evolution *cannot* be invariant
under time shift. The change over time is exactly what the theory
attempts to explain!

> not the open-or-closed
> character of some thermodynamic system. Running off to infinity to
> (try-to) escape the 2nd law is really NOT a good idea; in-the-end you
> just slam into a huge black-hole gravitational entropy which gets you
> nowhere.

More bullshit. I am not trying to escape the 2nd law. The 2nd law
doesn't even apply to the possibility of constructing a Lagrangian.
I'm pointing out that the 1st law doesn't even apply to biology in a
useful way either.

> Besides there's a subtle issue of just how "open" a system even complex
> bio-biologic chemistry needs, and when it needs it. Sure it needs a BB and
> heavy atom nucleosynthesis. But after proto-life forms ( I won't push my
> Arcturian Life-Pod model ... %^/ etc.) on earth you might get-away-with
> system-boundaries somewhere just outside moon orbit. Then in equilibrium,

I think you mean 'steady state', rather than 'equilibrium'. Please stop trying
to bully me with erudition. It doesn't work and just makes you look like
a pathetic geek-wanabee.

> low entropy UV photons in, high-entropy IR photons out ( excluding
> Prigogenes 2nd-entropy stuff ). Life sucks up the difference.
>
> And of-course in QM the state-vector is deterministically propagated. As
> to the future state vector ( after collapse ) you better be able to
> measure the same value or science stops working. True, an ensemble of
> state vectors will produce a measurement distribution after collapse or
> entanglement.

It is possible to formulate population genetics as the deterministic propagation
of a state vector representing an *ensemble* of populations, rather than
non-deterministic propagation of a vector representing the state of
a single known population. But it is not particularly useful to do so. The
'many worlds' metaphor buys you nothing in biology because you don't
have the luxury of completely controlling starting starting state in your
experiments (to an accuracy of plus or minus h) like physicists do. So
those alternative biological worlds can make no contact with experiment.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 12:55:08 PM1/1/08
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:55:21 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:

>noshellswill wrote:
>
>> Gents:
>>
>> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
>> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
>> verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.
>

>Do I detect yet another engineer who proposes to overthrow all of
>biology even though he knows nothing about it?

Do you? Maybe he/she/it is a rogue biologist. Or a lawyer.

<snip>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 12:53:04 PM1/1/08
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:53:31 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by noshellswill
<noshel...@gmail.com>:

>Gents:
>
>Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science

This is only "granted" by non-scientists. Since your premise
is wrong, the rest of your post is garbage.

gruebait

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 1:36:13 PM1/1/08
to
noshellswill remarked in
news:pan.2007.12.31....@gmail.com:

> Gents:
>

> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science,
> lacking a fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express
> the verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad
> enough.
>

> But almost as bad ...

I was able to read this far before it hurt.

--
Gruebait

Exactly forty-two angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 2:19:12 PM1/1/08
to

This happens in biological sciences, too. Never read a bio-sci journal?

I still think you're an engineer-type with no education or real
knowledge of biology.

> As for evo-biology having different ( I would say insufficient ) standards
> of validation than real science I have no doubt ....

Show how biology has different and insufficient standards. Mere
assertion doe snot make it so.

Still a whole lot of evasion and hand waving. Will you or will you not,
can you or can you not answer Frank's questions?

1) Do you agree that humans and dogs share a common ancestor?

2) Do you agree that evolution is the driver that causes the diversity
of life and the difference between dogs and humans?

Try answering "yes" or "no" to each question with a *short* overview
paragraph explaining why you chose yes or no. No hand waving and evasion
like you're doing here, no attempts at false erudition like you're
trying to do with Pip R. Lagenta. Simply answer the questions.

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 3:45:53 PM1/1/08
to

CA:

You're wasting my time with such doggerel. See my previous responses in
this thread.

nss
*****

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 4:09:53 PM1/1/08
to


RO:

That's your job, pal, as a supporter of the current bio-evol meme.
I'll be happy to grade your response.

nss
*****

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 4:40:02 PM1/1/08
to

Pip:

Why so hostile? You passed up the invitation to an amusing discussion
of "energy-like' functions appropriate to evolution. You were the one who
blundered requiring an open system -- I just gave you the biggest. And you
also blundered suggesting QM assigns something other than strict
determinism to an object of "propagation".
However, you've summed up your own meme well. Bio-evol is not science,
but history. I've suggested as much in this n.g. Appreciate the support.

nss
*****

nss
*****

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 5:29:29 PM1/1/08
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:55:08 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:55:21 GMT, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>
>>noshellswill wrote:
>>
>>> Gents:
>>>
>>> Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a
>>> fundamental OPERATOR ( such as d/dx ) to express the
>>> verbally stated concept of "selection". That's bad enough.
>>
>>Do I detect yet another engineer who proposes to overthrow all of
>>biology even though he knows nothing about it?
>
> Do you? Maybe he/she/it is a rogue biologist. Or a lawyer.
>
> <snip>

BC:

Lawyer? OMG. That is low ... very, very low. As to overthrowing all of
biology ... heck, a poster I just responded to insists on trashing
the 1st law just to save his version of bio-evol. That makes me a piker ...

He would turn bio-evol into pure history -- which may indeed be the truth.
I'll even argue that position for flamebait-points. but my gut feeling is
quite different.
I'd wager ( about $2.00 ) that if some sharp post-doc looked long-and-hard
at an appropriate far from equilibrium prebio-system they'd find novel,
chaotic self-structuring that would lock-in information transfer as
Prigogene predicted 50 years ago. Several simple chemical reactions are
well known to show this self-structuring ... hell, I even observed these
dynamics in a beta-structure solution of poly-L-lysine.

But perhaps not. Science is like that. Could be that the SH*T HAPPENS
version of bio-evol mostly supported in this n.g. speaks the truth of the
matter. But then - sadly - unlike the "superb" sciences, bio-evol has as
much to teach us as Xerxes dalliance with Artemisia over the sinking of a
Calyndian trireme.

nss
*****

Ron O

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 6:11:46 PM1/1/08
to

I never expected a valid response from an obvious faker.

Ron Okimoto

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 6:59:52 PM1/1/08
to
noshellswill wrote, on 2008/01/01 17:29:
> But perhaps not. Science is like that. Could be that the SH*T HAPPENS
> version of bio-evol mostly supported in this n.g. speaks the truth of the
> matter. But then - sadly - unlike the "superb" sciences, bio-evol has as
> much to teach us as Xerxes dalliance with Artemisia over the sinking of a
> Calyndian trireme.

Damn, then where did all those vaccines come from? The work being done
on cancer or an HIV/AIDs cure? Nope, stop it all now - biology is useless!

Sheesh.

John Harshman

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 8:12:41 PM1/1/08
to
noshellswill wrote:

Is your main purpose here is to display how very clever you are and how
many cryptic references you can make, or are you actually trying to
communicate? Whichever, you are only succeeding in being incomprehensible.

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 9:37:23 PM1/1/08
to

Really ... there is no issue with all the biochem, mol-bio, microbiology
and biophysics. Toss in all that cutting-up-thingys that
biologists & microscopists due. Etc as far as you want.

But that good science & engineering depends NOT ONE $0.01 on the
story-telling of bio-evol. My advise is: go solve a diffusion equation,
then another and another. Even write some code. You will then have a
useful trade.

nss
*****

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Jan 1, 2008, 9:51:54 PM1/1/08
to

So, from an earlier mention of K-12, a public school teacher. And a
fan of _Xena, Warrior Princess_.

I thought you'd devised a criticism of the theory of evolution that no
one would even understand, but it seems that plenty folks here do
understand it, they just aren't buying it. Apparently you believe
that Charles Darwin should have had a Lagrangian. In fact over a very
long term of illness he tried all kinds of "cures", with little
success.

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 12:11:12 AM1/2/08
to

RC:

Always taught at university ... the poor K-12 folks ( at least here in
Jacksonville ) get shot, stabbed and run_over ... I blame the problem here
on too many churches, too few P-Chem labs.

Yep, I'm a big fan of Zena, but moreso of Herodotus and the other
classical Greek historians. (Artemesia really was a hot babe.) Their
ultra-rationalism was/is a needed counter-point to the story-telling
Persian monarchs ... of all ages.

nss
****


wf3h

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 8:45:06 AM1/2/08
to
On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Why so hostile? You passed up the invitation to an amusing discussion
> of "energy-like' functions appropriate to evolution. You were the one who
> blundered requiring an open system -- I just gave you the biggest. And you
> also blundered suggesting QM assigns something other than strict
> determinism to an object of "propagation".
> However, you've summed up your own meme well. Bio-evol is not science,
> but history. I've suggested as much in this n.g. Appreciate the support.
>

now THIS makes no sense at all.

one can go into the lab and test evolution. since when is a laboratory
science 'history'? is chemistry history? physics?

wf3h

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 8:47:26 AM1/2/08
to
On Jan 1, 7:51 am, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know of no theory that precludes it. In real science even "superb"
> theories are constantly subject to experimental challenge, and conclusions
> always stated tentatively. Good recent examples of these challenges  are
> the Bell Inequality tests of locality, and Double Erasure measurements.
>
> Physical constructs with even the best theoretical foundation and
> extensive experimental support are constantly challenged from and by a
> thoroughly skeptic mindset. Counter-examples like foo-foo string theory
> really stand out ... you know lit-crit science when you see it.
>
> As for evo-biology having different ( I would say insufficient ) standards
> of validation than real science I have no doubt ....
>

is the existence of atoms still in doubt? if so, please let us know.

ernt mach certainly doubted their existence. but seems the existence
of atoms is considered a fact, rather than a theory, and few chemists
or physicists spend much time testing to see whether atoms exist.

The Last Conformist

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 8:54:13 AM1/2/08
to

What on earth makes you think an idiot asking for the Lagrangian of
evolution knows physics?

Davej

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 9:50:39 AM1/2/08
to
> You're wasting my time with such doggerel. See my previous
> responses in this thread.

No, what is a waste of time is when some creationist moron pretends
that incomplete theories and understandings that _do_ agree with
evidence should be thrown out in favor of nothing. Newton didn't
really understand photons so he should have kept his mouth shut.

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 10:39:12 AM1/2/08
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:47:26 -0800, wf3h wrote:


<clip >


> is the existence of atoms still in doubt? if so, please let us know.
>
> ernt mach certainly doubted their existence. but seems the existence
> of atoms is considered a fact, rather than a theory, and few chemists
> or physicists spend much time testing to see whether atoms exist.

wf3h:

Actually, real science skeptically probes its fundamentals all the time.
Truly "superb" physical theories not only enable correct quantitative
predictions, but also carry the 'germ' of their own replacement.

Look up "quantum erasure" as a current example of experimental testing at
a fundamental particle level. "whole atom" erasure will likely follow, as
happened with double-slit experiments. So as QM entities, atoms certainly
exist at the "event" of interaction, but you may need to be very
careful what you say about their existence BETWEEN interactions.

The extreme case is a single photon, for which 'trajectory' may not even
be defined.

nss
*****

SeppoP

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 10:59:15 AM1/2/08
to

And this has some obvious connection to the theory of evolution?
Could you be more specific? Lagrangian of a photon trajectory
affects natural selection in which obvious way?

I *really* must be dumb not to see the relevance which is
so obvious to you. Please elaborate...

--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

noshellswill

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 12:12:40 PM1/2/08
to

BigS:

The context of my answer was - in the first case - the question asked by
the previous poster:

"....is the existence of atoms still in doubt? if so, please let us know."

My answer explicitly points out that the question itself ( and the
meaning of the word EXISTENCE ) is an active issue in particle physics.

But of-course I implied more -- first, that bio-evol lacks the
quantitative, analytic foundation that ALLOWS a serious examination, and
secondly that bio-evol sociology ( the behavior of its adherents ) does
not encourage ( less demand ) such an examination.

Frankly I'm a little tired of repeating these points. If you have trouble
with the above concepts, I advise getting a good modern physics text.
Study hard. Do the problems. You'll get plenty of practice "reading
between lines".

nss
*********

Treus

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 1:02:44 PM1/2/08
to

noshellswill wrote:

> The extreme case is a single photon, for which 'trajectory' may not even
> be defined.


Your quantum erasure example makes this point well, I think. Though
there is a time delay and other effects between source and screen that
suggest a trajectory for each photon per se, there are also internal
relationships among the components of the experimental ensemble that
seem to create an emergent, instantaneous unity.

The slits, polarizers etc perform a function like the selection
process which, in itself, is not sufficient to account for the
observed phenomena. That is, looking only at the photons is a false
reductionism just like only considering the action of the various
types of selection on discrete specimens leads to problems like
increasing information over time, in my opinion.

The Enigmatic One

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 5:16:41 PM1/2/08
to
In article <pan.2007.12.31....@gmail.com>,
noshel...@gmail.com says...

>For all we know, the actual "unit of selection" may be a single hydrogen
>bond in some obscure sugar. Nice work Charlie, Dawkins will be proud of
>you.

Holy shit!

You're really fucking stupid!


-Tim

wf3h

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 6:05:06 PM1/2/08
to