Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

I forgot about my quotes. I have time for one from Sir Charles Sherrington.

Sherrington, as most are aware, was the towering figure of 20th century neurophysiology. He admitted that for all of the success achieved by natural science in describing the phenomenal world, it “stands powerless to deal with or describe mind…Mind, for anything perception can compose, goes in our spatial world more ghostly than a ghost. Invisible, intangible, it is a thing not even in outline, it is not a thing.”

from Man on His Nature

 

[reggieM]

Well, I’m sorry, but your position here is exactly analogous to he ID argument. Some phenomenon (the emergence of life and the evolution of complex life in one case, the phenomenon of mind in another) is inexplicable by the methods of natural science because the phenomenon in question transcends the natural order - the only difference is that the ID guys are wrong, clumsy and ignorant and you are right because - well because you know what phenomena are amenable to the methods of natural science and they don’t. As I said, you should be careful with this argument, as looking from outside, you’re flirting with an argument you despise, and one could regard some points you make below as powerful science killers.

I was hoping to see a response to this.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Then what is your hypothesis to bacteria that is every growing, adapting and changing to the antibiotics?

We know a good few things about bacteria, they reproduce very very fast, the rate of genetic mutation included means that in a short span they can quickly adapt to these agents that pose a threat to it.

So what can we deduce? That there is genetic change that allows the species to adapt to it’s environment, even when hostile.

God Bless.

Chris.

They remain bacteria. What happens is that a very small sample of the bacteria in question ***already ***have the capacity built in to survive the challenge posed by the new antibiotic before it was even invented. Almost as though God has determined that we will not rid ourselves of the curse of disease and parasites as easily as we would like. A small portion of the bacteria have been carrying around the ability to resist antibiotics since antiquity, millenia before they would even need the defence to be mobilised.

The remaining bacteria therefore become the basis of future generations that increasingly have the resistance built in. But it was there from the beginning.

And they’re still bacteria, not a new species.

That’s light years away from developing backbones, vision, hearing, multicelled forms, sexual reproduction, intelligence, nervous systems, specific organs, bipedal or quadripedal locomation, cold and warm bloodedness, and all the rest that evolutionists just seem to think came about by trial and error.

And to get back to viruses, they need hosts to begin with, more complicated life forms than themselves, to survive. The same condition applies to parasites, and symbiotic life forms.

 

[rossum]

What happens is that a very small sample of the bacteria in question ***already ***have the capacity built in to survive the challenge posed by the new antibiotic before it was even invented.

Yes, that is the nature of random mutations - they can have all sorts of strange effects. It is also worth pointing out that many antibiotics are based on existing biochemicals found in plants and so may not have been completely new, just a new variant on an old enemy. Look up the Luria-Delbrück experiment for more on this.

And they’re still bacteria, not a new species.

Bwahahahaha! I should hope not! Do you have any idea how much ground the description “bacteria” covers? Are you aware of how much larger than a mere single species the eubacteria taxon is, even without counting the archaea? To provide some comparison, “bacteria” is roughly the equivalent of “eukaryote”. The eukaryotes include amoebas, mushrooms, oak trees, jellyfish, ants, snakes, kangaroos, monkeys and humans. Pretty much every multi-celled organism on earth is a eukaryote, as well as some of the single celled ones. By saying “they’re still bacteria” you are also saying that you have no problem with there being an evolutionary link between an oak tree and ourselves: “they’re still eukaryotes”.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Bwahahahaha! I should hope not! Do you have any idea how much ground the description “bacteria” covers? Are you aware of how much larger than a mere single species the eubacteria taxon is, even without counting the archaea? To provide some comparison, “bacteria” is roughly the equivalent of “eukaryote”. The eukaryotes include amoebas, mushrooms, oak trees, jellyfish, ants, snakes, kangaroos, monkeys and humans. Pretty much every multi-celled organism on earth is a eukaryote, as well as some of the single celled ones. By saying “they’re still bacteria” you are also saying that you have no problem with there being an evolutionary link between an oak tree and ourselves: “they’re still eukaryotes”.

rossum

Would this be a broad definition of “kind”?

 

[itinerant1]

Well, I’m sorry, but your position here is exactly analogous to he ID argument. Some phenomenon (the emergence of life and the evolution of complex life in one case, the phenomenon of mind in another) is inexplicable by the methods of natural science because the phenomenon in question transcends the natural order - the only difference is that the ID guys are wrong, clumsy and ignorant and you are right because - well because you know what phenomena are amenable to the methods of natural science and they don’t. As I said, you should be careful with this argument, as looking from outside, you’re flirting with an argument you despise, and one could regard some points you make below as powerful science killers.

The differences between my logic and that of ID-ology are dramatic.

ID assumes that certain natural systems are irreducibly complex. I deny that hypothesis on both scientific and philosophic grounds. An important point here is that IC is problematic both philosophically and scientifically.

Second, extreme Darwinians assume that the biological continuum applies to man in the same way that it applies to other flora and fauna. I deny this assumption of both philosophical and scientific grounds. The Darwinian hypothesis about mind is problematic both scientifically and philosophically.

Of course a Darwinian would object to what I said, just as an ID theorists would object to what I said about IC. Both camps, however, have gone beyond methodological naturalism and made claims that are tantamount to being extra-scientific.

I have traced Darwin’s thinking in this matter in one or more of my previous posts, which you have ignored or have not seen, as is evidenced by your statement that my position is analogous to ID thinking. I have quoted Gould in clear support of the fact Darwin based his theory on a philosophical materialism. We can go over the fact again, if you like.

Because I more properly recognize the scope, province and limits of natural science and when that boundary has been ignored does not make my logic analogous to ID theory by any stretch of the imagination. Your objection is a textbook example of what I stated earlier about some neo-Darwinians who take their ideology for science. Darwin himself, made that error.

My objection to certain interpretations of mind are based on my observation that an explanation or accounting of certain human experiences is beyond a scientific and hence material explanation. I can assert that any complete explanation of consciousness and intellect cannot be a material or physical one. This means that your interpretation seeks to explain what is immaterial as if it must be material. “Immaterial” is strictly a negative term. It says nothing positive about what occurs in our experience. We have no human experience with non-material reality; obviously it cannot be perceived by the senses since all human knowledge originates in sense perception.

This does not mean that we cannot reason from what we experience as material reality to the fact there must exist that which non-material. But to reason beyond that to the nature of immaterial being, specifically the determinations of being, is not and should not be a part of natural sciences explanations.

But if you still think this kind of reasoning is a science stopper, I would say first get rid of the pseudo-scientific explanations of mind advanced by Charles Darwin and his supporters. Dump the ideology here that is taken for science and corrupts sound scientific explanations. Darwinian ideology is the most prevalent corrupter of science. Darwinians are just upset that ID theorists have come up with a popular counter ideology. The one thing Darwinism has over ID is that Darwinism is also science and has contributed immensely to our understanding of how nature works. ID, on the other hand, is not science and has nothing to contribute in this area.

As I said, if you want to go over all of this again, regarding Darwinian ideology, I have no objection because I believe before you can present reasonable objections to my position, that position must be properly understood. A position can be difficult to follow and understand when its critical points are found scattered over multiple posts. But I see no point in making long posts to explain something because it appears that most points get largely ignored anyway, whether the posts are short or long. ID supporters on CAF, for example, have ignored almost everything I said and respond by posting irrelevant objections and comments and a bunch of links I am supposed to follow.

I suppose you have your challenges trying to grasp ideas, such as my own, which are consistent with world view that is radically different from your own world view. I know I would have that difficulty if I were in your position.

 

[itinerant1]

I was hoping to see a response to this.

But don’t assume you will like my response: # 720.

 

[reggieM]

But don’t assume you will like my response: # 720.

What’s not to like? Maybe you convinced him. When ID uses the argument, it’s wrong, ignorant and a danger to science. When you use it, it’s right because you hate ID and you know the difference between philosophy and science. Plus, consciousness is immaterial.
I was very curious to see how you would handle the charge that you were using exactly the same argument that ID does - although in a weaker form by merely asserting that consciousness is outside of science.
So, I’m glad to see how you dealt with it.

 

[rossum]

Would this be a broad definition of “kind”?

Yes. At the very base of the Tree of Life there is one single taxon/kind: “Life on Earth”. At the next level there are four taxons/kinds:* eukaryotes

• eubacteria
• archaea
• viruses

What are commonly known as “bacteria” comprise the eubacteria and archaea; the two can be distinguished by their internal biochemistry. Almost every multicelled organism from sponges to ourselves is a eukaryote.

For a web based version go to the Tree of Life.

rossum

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Yes, that is the nature of random mutations - they can have all sorts of strange effects. It is also worth pointing out that many antibiotics are based on existing biochemicals found in plants and so may not have been completely new, just a new variant on an old enemy. Look up the Luria-Delbrück experiment for more on this.

Bwahahahaha! I should hope not! Do you have any idea how much ground the description “bacteria” covers? Are you aware of how much larger than a mere single species the eubacteria taxon is, even without counting the archaea? To provide some comparison, “bacteria” is roughly the equivalent of “eukaryote”. The eukaryotes include amoebas, mushrooms, oak trees, jellyfish, ants, snakes, kangaroos, monkeys and humans. Pretty much every multi-celled organism on earth is a eukaryote, as well as some of the single celled ones. By saying “they’re still bacteria” you are also saying that you have no problem with there being an evolutionary link between an oak tree and ourselves: “they’re still eukaryotes”.

rossum

Getting down to euphemisms now are we?

You may as well lump all machines together and say they’re all technically related. In other words, a stone wheeled horse cart has some evolutionary connection to an aircraft. Obviously they obey the same mechanical principles, but of course the incredible diversity of machinery includes an enormous amount of “intelligent design”.

I haven’t seen too many 747’s forming when tornados sweep through junkyards, as the late Professor Hoyle quoted, when he likened the probability of the chance formation of life to such an event. In fact, I haven’t even seen a neat dovetail joint forming, let alone somethign of that complexity.

But evolutionists can insist on such a scenario again and again, going from blind chemicals to nanomachinery to the phenomenal abilities of the human mind and body, despite the fact that the law of entropy inevitably leads to greater chaos in unguided chemical systems.

I wonder how much longer this myth will persist in scientific circles. Say the word “evolution” and everyone thinks you’re a genius. Say the word “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” and everyone thinks you’re a nut, even if you’ve got degrees in palaontology, astro-physics or microbiology.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Getting down to euphemisms now are we?

You may as well lump all machines together and say they’re all technically related. In other words, a stone wheeled horse cart has some evolutionary connection to an aircraft. Obviously they obey the same mechanical principles, but of course the incredible diversity of machinery includes an enormous amount of “intelligent design”.

I haven’t seen too many 747’s forming when tornados sweep through junkyards, as the late Professor Hoyle quoted, when he likened the probability of the chance formation of life to such an event. In fact, I haven’t even seen a neat dovetail joint forming, let alone somethign of that complexity.

But evolutionists can insist on such a scenario again and again, going from blind chemicals to nanomachinery to the phenomenal abilities of the human mind and body, despite the fact that the law of entropy inevitably leads to greater chaos in unguided chemical systems.

I wonder how much longer this myth will persist in scientific circles. Say the word “evolution” and everyone thinks you’re a genius. Say the word “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” and everyone thinks you’re a nut, even if you’ve got degrees in palaontology, astro-physics or microbiology.

Do you know what’s really worrying the evolutionists? Once upon a time they weren’t worried because the only people who expressed doubt about evolution were preachers and bible thumpers. Since scientists had a high credibility rating when it came to pronouncing “truth” in their field, backed up by the rapid rate of technical development in modern society, they felt secure in their belief.

But what’s happening now is that the creationist side is gaining an increasing number of highly qualified scientists in its ranks. In other words, there are a number of scientists for whom the “facts” of evolution don’t add up.

I’ve attached a link to an article on Scientists who are rejecting evolution.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

 

[reggieM]

Interesting …

From soup to cells — the origin of life. From the Understanding Evolution web site.

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Let’s keep this reference handy. Perhaps one day, someone could say something like: “the field of evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the origin of life”. I’m not sure if anyone would ever possibly say something like that, but in the rare chance that it does happen, we can show this quote from a site supported by the *National Science Foundation *in collaboration with the National Center for Science Education.

 

[reggieM]

Do you know what’s really worrying the evolutionists? Once upon a time they weren’t worried because the only people who expressed doubt about evolution were preachers and bible thumpers. Since scientists had a high credibility rating when it came to pronouncing “truth” in their field, backed up by the rapid rate of technical development in modern society, they felt secure in their belief.

But what’s happening now is that the creationist side is gaining an increasing number of highly qualified scientists in its ranks. In other words, there are a number of scientists for whom the “facts” of evolution don’t add up.

That is true. Evolutionists were blind-sided by the sudden appearance of scholars and scientists who had sharp criticisms of Darwinian theory – beginning in the mid 1990s and growing from there. Skepticism about Darwinism has been growing.
Here’s something else that is really worrying evolutionists:

Poll finds over half of Britons support teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design along with Evolution

We might wonder how that happened. After 50 or more years of state-mandated teaching of evolution and with Darwinists occupying all the major posts in science academia and the power of the secular media offering Darwinian propaganda, unchallenged, every opportunity it gets, and the continual ridicule and hostility offered towards Creationism and Intelligent Design … still, over half the public wants those hated topics taught in school “alternative perspectives” to the Theory of Evolution.

What can Darwinists say about that? That their claims about evolution are simply not convincing enough to the public? Or they failed to teach the subject in a way that would convince students of its truth?

Maybe they’ll say that half the public is stupid and ignorant (after they studied from Darwin-only programs)?

Whatever excuses they come up with – that poll was an absolute disaster for the Darwinian-lobby in the U.K. The responses I’ve read on atheistic-evolutionary sites have been filled with anguish and despair and frustration. But there are not a lot of answers about why this happened. There are some claims that “we have to do a better job teaching” – but no explanation on why they did such a bad job so far.

Perhaps it’s something like this. A reasonable comment is offered about how bacteria does not seem to show a trajectory of evolution into more and more complex organisms, but remains as bacteria – in some cases, indistinguishable from modern bacteria after 250 million years.

The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes

The evolutionary response to a comment like that?

Bwahahahaha! I should hope not!

So, perhaps the response to that kind of evolutionism is the headline I posted – “Over half of Britons support Teaching Intelligent Design …”

 

[redneck22]

Interesting …

From soup to cells — the origin of life. From the Understanding Evolution web site.

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Let’s keep this reference handy. Perhaps one day, someone could say something like: “the field of evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the origin of life”. I’m not sure if anyone would ever possibly say something like that, but in the rare chance that it does happen, we can show this quote from a site supported by the *National Science Foundation *in collaboration with the National Center for Science Education.

Good 1 Reggie!

Since the FOUNDATION of evolution is in abiogenesis, then it is an integral part of it. However the supporters of this completely ridiculous theory are required to build castles in the sky.

Even if life is created in the laboratory by the brightest chemists in the best labs, that will only demonstrate that it took a huge amount of intellgent design to achieve this, just as it did the first time.

 

[hecd2]

I understood this argument the first time that you made it. My apologies if I didn’t make this clear in my subsequent posts. I do hope that you are not making the suggestion that because we disagree I don’t understand. I do understand, but I disagree.

So why do you keep criticising the evidence that I present for the *necessity *of specific neural networks to specific mental tasks including abstraction, for not showing that brain processes are *sufficient *for mind, when I am suggesting no such thing?

What exactly is it that you disagree with in the statement of my position?

Of course I’m not! I’m trying to get at the limits of natural science when attempting to explain the brain and the inadequacy of materialism to deal with consciousness. All that is being studied in neuroscience is what the brain does. It ignores the phenomenology of human consciousness

I don’t think you can read very much neuroscience if you think that it ignores human consciousness or any other mental phenomenon.

and then people are told “This is how it is” on the basis of mechanisms and processes. This ignores the richness, complexity, variety and compelling nature of consciousness.

We are in the early days of this and so neuroscientists are working on relatively tractable problems. But the brain processes and mechanisms undeniably map to mental processes, and in any case science is not stamp collecting - it seeks to explain the emergence of complexity from simpler laws.

The research that you describe is a plank in an argument that is going nowhere because the conclusion cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt.

Well, in that case, we should give up science altogether, because there are many scientific conclusions that we hold tentatively because they are the best, most parsimonious explanations available, not because we have demonstrated them beyond doubt.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

It’s not been shown that natural models can be exhaustive or even robust in addressing cognition. But the objections here are just unjustified assertions – “universals are radically beyond the nature of physical matter and energy”. There’s no reason (beyond theology) to accept such a claim. The only way to get there I can see is by presuming one’s conlusion.

-TS

ETA: This discussion should probably moved to its own thread.

To assert that there is “There’s no reason (beyond theology) to accept such a claim” is to completely and totally misunderstand the natue of the claim. Theology has nothing to do with the claim. In addition, what you have been describing as universals are not universal intentions (intentiones). Hence, you must understand the traditional psychology before you can present a critique that actually addresses the moderate realist notion of universals. In sum, your response bypasses the problem rather than addressing it.

To resume this topic, we should jump to another thread, as you suggest, such as the “Soul and and the Brain” thread, or start a new one.

 

[hecd2]

When has a politician ever been right about anything? Don’t get me started on politicians.

OK. Just to let you know I’m busy for the next few days but will try to get back to open threads when I have time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[redneck22]

Perhaps it’s something like this. A reasonable comment is offered about how bacteria does not seem to show a trajectory of evolution into more and more complex organisms, but remains as bacteria – in some cases, indistinguishable from modern bacteria after 250 million years.

The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes

…"

From the Oxford journals (Note: 250Myr=250,000,000years=65,000,000,000,000 generations of bacteria at 20 minutes per generation)

"Using the most scrupulous and well-documented sampling procedures and contamination-protection techniques reported to date, Vreeland, Rosenzweig, and Powers (2000) reported the isolation of a sporeforming bacterium, Bacillus strain 2-9-3, from a brine inclusion within a halite crystal recovered from the 250-Myr-old Permian Salado Formation in Carlsbad, NM.

As had been noted in earlier studies, a striking observation by Vreeland, Rosenzweig, and Powers (2000) was that the 16S rDNA of isolate 2-9-3 is 99% identical to that of Salibacillus marismortui, a bacterium isolated from the **Dead Sea in 1936 **(Arahal et al. 1999 ). In fact, Arahal et al. (1999) identified as S. marismortui three strains with 16S rDNA sequences differing by 0.01%, suggesting that isolate 2-9-3 might also be classified as S. marismortui.

In other words, every taxon on the tree would have had to be metabolically and evolutionarily dormant for at least 250 Myr sometime in their past, a hypothesis which is impossible to test.

The evidence presented here clearly indicates that isolate 2-9-3 should be considered a strain of S. marismortui under the established standards of 16S rRNA systematics, which state that isolates sharing >97% identity should be considered as the same species (Stackebrandt and Goebel 1994 ).

But does such a close relationship to modern bacteria mean that isolate 2-9-3 is itself modern? The answer to this question must be sought by resolving what appears to be an increasingly common paradox. We have a large set of rigorous geological and microbiological data which can be interpreted in favor of the antiquity of these organisms, and an equally large set of rigorously obtained molecular data which can be interpreted in favor of their modernity. As it stands, our present molecular work can neither confirm nor disprove the age of isolate 2-9-3. "

It looks like its the “Soft Dino tissue” revisited. It’s either the scientifically testable evidence is wrong or the 250Myr time is wrong. As usual it only demonstrates that bacteria, NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME THEY ARE GIVEN, will only reproduce bacteria, just as the book of Genesis says they would.

 

[itinerant1]

What’s not to like? Maybe you convinced him. When ID uses the argument, it’s wrong, ignorant and a danger to science. When you use it, it’s right because you hate ID and you know the difference between philosophy and science. Plus, consciousness is immaterial.
I was very curious to see how you would handle the charge that you were using exactly the same argument that ID does - although in a weaker form by merely asserting that consciousness is outside of science.
So, I’m glad to see how you dealt with it.

I see that the distinctions I made were too subtle for you to grasp, so perhaps I need to expound at greater length next time. But now I’m wondering whether you even understand much that is correct about ID theory, as well.

And what were your comments about the percentage of the American population that is creationist supposed to prove? Even as a persuasive argument, I found it quite lacking. The number of people who reject evolution theory is irrelevant to the truth or error of the theory.

Do creationists reject evolution based on an adequate understanding of the theory and have opinions against evolution that can be reasonably supported? Furthermore, any problems alleged or real with evolution theory in no way constitutes evidence for the truth of fundamentalist creationism as an alternative explanation. It may just mean that evolution theory is incomplete and needs still more revision.

Creationism has its own flaws, ones that are critical. The large number of people who adhere to creationism, or any other theory, is no proof that the position is basically sound. Many people believed the Earth is flat, the vast majority in some cultures. For example, the ancient Hebrews and their neighbors believed the earth to be flat. If you told them the Earth is round they would probably say that is impossible. The antipodes would fall off. How many later Europeans believed the Earth was flat even though certain ancient Greeks thinkers conclusively demonstrated that the Earth is round.

Truth is not determined by the number of votes a belief gets. Truth is independent of the number of people who believe a thing. As far as majorities are concerned, Henry David Thoreau once said, “Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one.”

Turkey, reportedly has a higher percentage of its population who believe in creationism than does the U.S. This phenomenon is due largely to the efforts of Adnan Oktar. You should read his brief online biography and keep it in mind next time you think there is something totally positive about the percentage of a population the is creationist.

 

[Fran65]

So why do you keep criticising the evidence that I present for the *necessity *of specific neural networks to specific mental tasks including abstraction, for not showing that brain processes are *sufficient *for mind, when I am suggesting no such thing?What exactly is it that you disagree with in the statement of my position?

You are arguing that this evidence is an important step towards demonstrating that the brain is sufficient for mind. I disagree that the brain can ever be shown to be sufficient for mind.

I don’t think you can read very much neuroscience if you think that it ignores human consciousness or any other mental phenomenon.
We are in the early days of this and so neuroscientists are working on relatively tractable problems. But the brain processes and mechanisms undeniably map to mental processes, and in any case science is not stamp collecting - it seeks to explain the emergence of complexity from simpler laws…

I did not say that it ignores mental phenomenon. However, the type of mental phenomenon studied, for example which networks become active when shown dot sets of varying sizes is not representative of the experience of consciousness. It is a single, highly specific acitivity - in contrast to the varied, complex, rich and encompassing conscious experience that I had yesterday when attending my six monthly cardiological check up. It would take volumes for me to describe even one minute of the panolply of emotion, thought, image, sensation, memory experienced. Neuroscience as it stands is inadequate for this task. It does not study* conscious experience as perceived by the individual,* it studies physiological correlates of following instructions. It proceeds from the researcher saying “look at this” or “do that” and then observes the scans, images and/or electrode recordings. It is bottom up and not top down in its approach. The scans and electrode recordings of someone not following instructions are indecipherable and useless.

In addition, surely stamp collecting is exactly what is happening - are you suggesting that a big enough collection will explain consciousness? A million neural maps add up to – a million neural maps - there is a lot more involved! We may well develop better (more complex and even predictive) models of mental processes based on neural nets, but this still does not model the abstractions discussed by itinerant1.

Well, in that case, we should give up science altogether, because there are many scientific conclusions that we hold tentatively because they are the best, most parsimonious explanations available, not because we have demonstrated them beyond doubt.

What I’m suggesting is not that that science should be given up - heaven forfend that - my profession depends upon it! - I am simply stating that showing that consciousness is solely a physical process is unfalsifiable. It cannot be disproved - and neither can the contrary position.