Joe scores

_{April 3, 2013

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a previous post of mine Joe replied to a comment of an evolutionist:

Evolutionist: “Reproductive success is usually what is meant by fitness. As the biomass of living bacteria currently far exceeds that of all other organisms on Earth, perhaps they should be considered the pinnacle of fitness.”

Joe: “Kind of makes you wonder why eukaryotes even got started. And it seems to go against natural selection. The less fit appear to be doing very, very well.”

Bravo Joe. If bacteria are the “pinnacle of fitness” you ask “why eukaryotes even got started”? In prokaryotes natural selection worked to increase fitness. In eukaryotes natural selection worked to decrease fitness. Evolution does X and NOT X in the same time.

Discovered the n-th contradiction of Darwinism. I am going to insert it in my collection. Thanks Joe.

For the record, this supports my argument about the weakness of the concept of fitness (see here)…

Comments

Never get a lawyer with emotional ties to the accused. :)Joe_{April 6, 2013
April
04
Apr
6
06
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

His name was Satan. ;)Mung_{April 6, 2013
April
04
Apr
6
06
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Who was your lawyer?Joe_{April 6, 2013
April
04
Apr
6
06
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Joe, You can sue anyone or anything, including people and things that don't even exist. The trick is winning the suit. I once sued God. Don't ask how that turned out.Mung_{April 6, 2013
April
04
Apr
6
06
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Goodusername:
That there is a differential survival in populations due to varying traits isn’t (afaik) disputed.
This really only happens to bacteria with maximum selection pressure. (inherit this mutation or starve to death) This seems to be the primary conditions where "micro-evolution" occurs, and even then there is no new functional genetic sequences being formed. (and we don't even know for sure if this is random!) As far as "varying traits" in sexual species/animals, that is mostly phenotypic plasticity. (traits the species was already equipped with expressed under different conditions) which is of course nothing to do with microevolution. Resource/mate availability, predation, or just plain good or bad fortune has magnitudes more effect on an individual's reproductive success, then some kind of weird mutation... save a drastically harmful one. But certainly Natural Selection is not going to favor any change resulting from a few dinky nucleotide changes, over a multitude of actual selection pressures. So.. in conclusion, I would say No. differential survival/natural selection has very little to do with varying traits. (unless you were referring to harmful variations like being born without an arm) Further reading: Signal to noise ratio / princess & nucleotide paradox by John Sanford.lifepsy_{April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

I have another evo- an Andy Schueler- blathering on about nested hierarchies. I told him that if all the transitional forms still existed that we wouldn’t have a strict, objective nested hierarchy.
Not true. You actually claimed the following:
An Army is a nested hiearchy. Just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. However with gradual evolution we would expect to see a smooth blending of deining traits, and that would ruin a nested hierarchy based on traits.
Source And now, after I explained to you how your misconceptions would prove that the very existence of nested hierarchies (or any form of hierarchical classification in fact) are a logical impossibility, you realized that you were wrong and moved on to a new claim, that "if all the transitional forms still existed that we wouldn’t have a strict, objective nested hierarchy". Which is completely and utterly irrelevant for our initial disagreement since organisms are in fact not immortal and the overwhelming majority of organisms that ever lived, happen to be dead. But Darwin (and even Denton) happen to be right here - if every single organism that ever lived would be immortal and still be around, a nested hierarchy of taxonomic units would indeed be impossible, since a single group containing all life would be the only meaningful classification. This has nothing to do with your argument though (and is nothing more than a thought experiment anyway since organisms are in fact not immortal...).
Hey Barry, can I sue him?
Oh yes, please do that! And don´t forget to mention the conditions of our bet, which happen to be the following:
Btw, maybe you didn´t get it, but I accepted your challenge. We could also have this settled by judges if you prefer. And, since I´m absolutely confident that I am right and you are as wrong as you could possibly be (since your hilarious misconceptions about nested hierarchies are so ridiculous that they would demonstrate that nested hierarchies are a logical impossibility if they were accurate), I let you choose the judges. Hell, they could even be Cdesign proponentsists for all I care. All that matters to me is that they can speak with authority about the matter – professional Mathematicians (or Computer Scientists) working on classification / clustering problems, Mathematicians working on Markovian processes, Biomathematicians, Bioinformaticians working on phylogeny inference and / or Markov models, Taxonomists etc. – and that they are willing to go on the record with their name and professional affiliation (and thus risking their reputation should they lie about the subject).
Source Now it would be time for you to put your money where your mouth is.Andy Schueler_{April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Joe scores again! $10,000 USD I have another evo- an Andy Schueler- blathering on about nested hierarchies. I told him that if all the transitional forms still existed that we wouldn't have a strict, objective nested hierarchy. He called me a moron. So to support my claim I offered:
Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
And like the coward he is Andy cried "That doesn't support your claim!" LoL! Denton agrees with me:
There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)
We have a $10,000 bet on who knows more about nested hierarchies. He will never pay me though. Hey Barry, can I sue him?Joe_{April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Niches are filled or they are not filled.
OK- but my bad- they don't need to be FILLED. They need to be occupied. Sorry for the confusion.Joe_{April 5, 2013
April
04
Apr
5
05
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Niches are filled or they are not filled. There is no need to be filled and no need to fill. Not being filled is a more likely outcome and no needs are unfulfilled either way because there are no needs. Survivors survive. That life must to reproduce to survive does not imply that life must survive.Pacific_{April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

And just to be clear- evolutionists cannot account for prokaryotes, let alone eukaryotes. And unfortunately no one can scientifically account for the rise of eukaryotes from prokaryotes- note- we cannot test the endosymbiotic hypothesis. All we can do is say "Hey those organelles "look like" they could have been bacteria", and that ain't scientific.Joe_{April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

Niches don’t need
They need to be filledJoe_{April 4, 2013
April
04
Apr
4
04
2013
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

When the niche Needed a fish
Niches don't needPacific_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

You will probably also agree that ‘survival of those with the most offspring’ still has a tautological ring to it, and a strong resonance of after-the-fact reasoning.
I would say more than just a tautological ring.goodusername_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

@Goodusername #13 You will probably also agree that 'survival of those with the most offspring' still has a tautological ring to it, and a strong resonance of after-the-fact reasoning.Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Hello Goodusername, can you define ‘beneficial’? The problem with defining ‘survival of the fittest’ is that it is mostly tautological (a circular definition), e.g. ‘The fittest are those that survive’. I can recommend this essay by forum member Eric Anderson
Hi Box, I actually agree that the idea of "fitness" is tautological. Thus, by "beneficial", I didn't mean the biggest, or the strongest, or smartest, etc, I merely meant whatever aided in producing more offspring. And thus, Natural Selection isn't a theory of who survives. If it were, the tautology would be a problem since the theory wouldn't actually be saying anything. Natural Selection says that those who DO survive (or, more specifically, reproduce) will determine the change in the population over time. In other words, it's a theory regarding the consequences of the differential survival/reproduction rates. That there is a differential survival in populations due to varying traits isn't (afaik) disputed. And, of course, none of this is unique to Darwinism. This is the same idea that just about everyone, including non-evolutionists, accepts for how micro-evolution or adaptation takes place. The dispute between Darwinists and Intelligent Design advocates is on the extent of the change that can take place (which is another subject).goodusername_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

So please don’t fret. Nor break a sweat. When the niche Needed a fish A fish you will get.
Wiliam Butler Yeats?
Nope, Joseph Cakeboy Gallien, author of "Poof the Magic Mutant" and other evolutionary musings.Joe_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

OT: Bacterial Cell Division and Peptidoglycan Synthesis: An Evolutionary Enigma - April 3, 2013 Excerpt: Now, here's the conundrum. Consider the following two observations: (1) Critical to the elongation process is the severing of the peptidoglycan cell wall by the autolysins. (2) Critical to cell viability is the re-synthesis of the peptidoglycan cell wall. This has to be done in a coordinated fashion. Breaking of the cell wall can serve no adaptive utility until a mechanism has arisen for the simultaneous integration of peptidoglycan precursors. Indeed, without the latter mechanism, the cell is rendered non-viable. This is a classic example of what one might describe as an irreducibly complex system. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/bacterial_cell070681.htmlbornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

So please don’t fret. Nor break a sweat. When the niche Needed a fish A fish you will get.
Wiliam Butler Yeats?Box_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Goodusername #6: What is “fit” depends on the population and the environment. A new trait that is beneficial in one population – and thus quickly spreads throughout that population in that environment – may not be beneficial to other populations in other environments.
Hello Goodusername, can you define ‘beneficial’? The problem with defining ‘survival of the fittest’ is that it is mostly tautological (a circular definition), e.g. ‘The fittest are those that survive’. I can recommend this essay by forum member Eric AndersonBox_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

What is “fit” depends on the population and the environment. A new trait that is beneficial in one population – and thus quickly spreads throughout that population in that environment – may not be beneficial to other populations in other environments. Hello Goodusername, you state that 'fit' depends on context, which makes sense. Can you define 'beneficial'? The problem with defining 'survival of the fittest' is that it is mostly tautological (a circular definition), e.g. 'The fittest are those that survive'. I can recommend this essay by forum member Eric AndersonBox_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

niwrad, save for the fact the NDE's actually have strong evidence to support them, and Neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn't, the comparison might be fair: Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLEmETQdMkg&feature=player_detailpage#t=629sbornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

What is “fit” depends on the population and the environment. A new trait that is beneficial in one population – and thus quickly spreads throughout that population in that environment – may not be beneficial to other populations in other environments. A trait that spreads throughout a population of Bluejays will likely not have any effect on mammals or even other species of birds. It may not even affect other populations of Bluejays, but be something unique to that particular population of Bluejays. One of the things Darwin was trying to help explain with his theory is the great diversity of life we see around us. Of course, the idea of fitness isn’t unique to Darwinism or even evolution. How are single celled eukaryotes surviving today if prokaryotes are more fit? Because where the eukaryotes are living, prokaryotes AREN’T more fit.goodusername_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

NL: And how does Dr. Eben Alexander's 'non-local' NDE fit in panpsychism? This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold. A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html A proof of heaven - November 2, 2012 - video Dr. Eben Alexander shares his thoughts on whether science can explain that heaven really does exist. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49665334#49665334 Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012 Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html As well, there is a viable mechanism to explain why Dr. Alexander's NDE was experienced as 'non-local' consciousness instead of as going through a tunnel as is 'normal' in NDE's. Quantum Entanglement of consciousness in the brain is found to be rather different, more spread out, than Quantum Entanglement of the soul to the rest of the body is: Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video http://vimeo.com/39982578 Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories - January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain-entanglement-could-explain-memories.htmlbornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, you are not off topic: NDE = "New Darwinian Evolution", which is a "Near Death Experience" because is a dead theory illusorily "living" only in the mind of Darwinists.niwrad_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

@BA77 (2) <= Interestingly, the similar phenomenolgy of experience, including hyper-reality, speed and accuracy of memories, sense of awakening into that NDE realm from our daily realm which appears as sleep from NDE side, arises naturally in my variant of panpsychism, as explained in the posts #58 and #100. Post #58, follows it up beyond the stages of experience covered in the above article (which only reaches as far as the reversible stages). Post #100 also addresses the other well known form of this experience, labeled in the post as "exceptional path" which is taken only by the very few who had followed the ancient immortality recipe. The "regular path" which is the subject of the above article is taken by nearly everyone else and is also accessible to some in deeper layers of DMT experience. In any case, I am glad to see NDE is going mainstream.nightlight_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

OT: Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? - Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège researchers have demonstrated that the physiological mechanisms triggered during NDE lead to a more vivid perception not only of imagined events in the history of an individual but also of real events which have taken place in their lives!,,, ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm It is interesting, if you read the end of the article at science daily, to note the skeptic's, who set up the test, ultimate reaction to the results of this test that they themselves had set up.bornagain77_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Eukaryotes got started because they filled a niche- the niche of nucleated organisms. And as far as niches go, that was quite some niche. So please don't fret. Nor break a sweat. When the niche Needed a fish A fish you will get.Joe_{April 3, 2013
April
04
Apr
3
03
2013
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply