Friday, July 18, 2014

Here Are the Three Important Take-Aways From That New Spider Study

Nothing is Going Right

A new study out of Harvard continues to find problems with the spider evolution story. This time it is a massive genetic study demonstrating that spiders that create orb webs do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern. As usual, the problem cannot simply be explained away as a consequence of methodological problems and evolutionists are left with convergence or extinction as their only explanations. Either orb weaving evolved multiple times, or it evolved once, proliferated, and then a bunch of species became extinct. Ever since Darwin this denouement has repeated itself over and over—evolutionists apply their theory to a particular problem, their predictions turn out false, and they respond by accommodating the new findings. Skeptics say the theory is failing and evolutionists say this is just good science at work. Did you expect every prediction to be perfect? Inevitably the debate devolves into one over falsification and unfortunately misses what is really important.

There literally are thousands of stories like this spider study. Evolutionary expectations fail, evolutionists adjust and move on, explaining that there’s nothing there that falsified evolution, it was merely a particular prediction that was falsified.

But that doesn’t mean that such failures do not pose serious problems for the theory of evolution. Evolutionists go easy on their theory. They set the bar high and enjoy the ability of their theory to avoid falsification.

To be fair though, one should not expect the practitioners and promoters of a theory to be serious skeptics. Evolutionists sometimes say they would love to falsify their theory, as that would make them famous. But in science there are enormous conformance pressures, ranging from social to monetary. And this is even more so with evolution. If you genuinely question evolution (not just question a sub hypothesis) then you become an anathema. You will be called a creationist. You will be blackballed and rather than becoming famous, you become infamous.

So what is the problem with evolution’s failed predictions, such as this latest study of orb weaving spiders? Actually there are three problems. It is true that the predicted failure, alone, does not falsify evolutionary theory. That’s a rather silly notion given how evolution was never confirmed in the first place, and how flexible is the theory. Evolutionists cannot even explain, in any scientific sense, the evolution of a single protein.

Evolution is metaphysically motivated and has always failed on the science. So the problem is not that new prediction failures falsify the theory. The first problem with such failures is their quantity. There are thousands of such failures. Evolution is consistently coming up short. Its predictions are always wrong and evolutionists are always surprised. To say this steady stream of failure is just a sign of good science is an incredible euphemism.

The second problem with such failures is that they cause the theory to lose parsimony. With each failed prediction, the theory becomes far more complicated as patches and epicycles are added. And this brings us to the third problem, which is related to the second problem.

These failed predictions cause evolution to lose its smoking gun. The strong scientific argument for evolution was that in a stroke it resolves myriad puzzles in the life sciences. There is a consilience across a wide spectrum of disparate disciplines and data, and previously unlikely or bizarre findings are suddenly and simply explained by Darwin’s elegant theory.

This is all a myth as there never was any such genuine consilience. But if one selectively examines the evidence, one can construct such a story. And it is a powerful story. Why do so many species have the pentadactyl structure? It doesn’t seem to make sense, but with common descent it suddenly falls into place. Across those many species, the pentadactyl structure falls neatly into evolution’s common descent pattern. It is all so obvious.

Take this example along with so many others, and you have a consilience. These curious evidences are the smoking gun that compels us to accept evolution. There’s only one problem. There is no such consilience. This latest spider study is just one more example of how the evidence does not fall neatly into the evolutionary pattern—it contradicts that simple, elegant pattern.

Even the venerable pentadactyl structure failed. As Stephen J. Gould put it, “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly reversed.”

So it is not that evolutionists cannot explain away all these failures. Of course they can. Evolution is an over-arching, vague, notion that can accommodate myriad findings with all manner of creative explanations. The problem is there is no reason to think, from a scientific perspective, that evolution is a good theory. It cannot explain how the species arose, and the patterns that the species form don’t fit evolution’s expected pattern. There is no smoking gun.

Consider how one report explains the new spider study findings:

For decades, the story of spider evolution went like this: As insects became more and more diverse, with some species taking to the skies, spiders evolved new hunting strategies, including the ability to weave orb-shaped webs to trap their prey. From that single origin, the story goes, orb-weaver spiders diverged along different evolutionary paths, leading to today, where several species weave similar -- though not identical -- webs. It's a good story, but there's just one problem -- Harvard scientists now know it's not true. The largest-ever phylogenetic study of spiders, conducted by postdoctoral student Rosa Fernández, Gonzalo Giribet, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, and Gustavo Hormiga, a professor at George Washington University, shows that, contrary to long-held popular opinion, the two groups of spiders that weave orb-shaped webs do not share a single origin.

As the study explains, the findings demand “a major reevaluation of our current understanding of the spider evolutionary chronicle.”

110 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter: With each failed prediction, the theory becomes far more complicated as patches and epicycles are added.

    Convergence and extinction have been part of evolutionary theory since Darwin. By the way, many insect larvae also spin silk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recreating the exact same genetic sequences in distant species via convergent evolution is not science. It is chicken shit superstition.

      Delete
    2. Louis Savain: Recreating the exact same genetic sequences in distant species via convergent evolution is not science.

      Are you saying that more distantly related spiders have identical sequences not shared by more closely related spiders?

      Delete
    3. No. I'm saying you are a religionist, a fraud.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel:Convergence and extinction have been part of evolutionary theory since Darwin.

      Sorry, Zach. Non-falsifiable, ad-hoc theory rescue devices do not get better with time. It was a good effort for feigned rebuttal, though.

      Evolutionists don't even know how to identify a homologous trait. If it seems like it fits well with preferred models of common descent, then it's a homology. If the trait becomes conflicting later on than it can be instantly magicked into a convergence.

      This is why your favorite mantra of a supposed "nested hierarchy of common descent" is nothing but mythology.

      Delete
    5. lifepsy: Non-falsifiable, ad-hoc theory rescue devices do not get better with time.

      Regardless, those mechanisms have been part of the theory since Darwin, not newly added "patches and epicycles"

      lifepsy: Evolutionists don't even know how to identify a homologous trait.

      Limbs on dogs and cats are homologous.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel,

      lifepsy: "Evolutionists don't even know how to identify a homologous trait."

      Zachriel: "Limbs on dogs and cats are homologous."

      Are limbs on a dog and a human homologous?

      Delete
    7. Nic: Are limbs on a dog and a human homologous?

      Yes.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel displaying his bald assertion powers as usual.

      Delete
    9. Zachriel,

      Nic: "Are limbs on a dog and a human homologous?"

      Zachrieal: "Yes."

      Are the limbs on a horse and a human homologous?

      Delete
    10. Nic: Are the limbs on a horse and a human homologous?

      Yes. So are the digits. See Cooper et al., Patterning and post-patterning modes of evolutionary digit loss in mammals, Nature 2014.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel,

      Nic: "Are the limbs on a horse and a human homologous?"

      Zachriel: "Yes. So are the digits."

      As such, it is then support for the hypothesis of a common ancestor?

      Delete
    12. Nic: As such, it is then support for the hypothesis of a common ancestor?

      Huh? Homology presupposes common descent.

      Delete
    13. Zachriel,

      Nic: "As such, it is then support for the hypothesis of a common ancestor?"

      Zachriel: "Huh? Homology presupposes common descent."

      Homology is used as evidence for common descent and common descent is used to explain homology. Sounds familiar.

      Delete
    14. Nic: Homology is used as evidence for common descent and common descent is used to explain homology.

      Structures are homologous if they share a common ancestor.

      Delete
  2. Terrific, one of your best posts ever CH, congrats. BTW I haven't seen much of Thornton on here lately, anyone know what's up? Postulate: some of his colleagues and young acolytes were reading his posts on here and decided on a heart to heart, starting out something like 'hey dude, look ...' Kind of sorry myself, I was having such fun with him around. Maybe he has a new screen name and I'm not as sharp as I thought. We do still have Zach although (s)he is much more careful. So while I'm at it:

    MSEE: Linear system theory has limitations when applied to systems for which it is not formulated such as one containing a NONLINEAR component.

    Zachriel: Which is most everything.

    Everything except for electrodynamics which considering the scale of space is a pretty big chunk everything. Propagation of a laser beam or radio-frequency in a near vacuum seems pretty sinusoidal-based to me from end-to-end. Even the wavelet of a photon is considered to be an exponentially damped sinusoid, a classically considered linear eigenfunction.

    Consider also optics, the only linear system I can think of (possibly excepting acoustics) which can generate a Fourier transform, another foundation of linear system theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as we can tell, you don't seem to be addressing the topic of the thread.

      Delete
    2. Thanks MSEE. Regarding Thorton, he lost his posting privileges.

      Delete
    3. Thorton is a pseudoscientist, a weaver of lies and deception. Every time I read one of his comments, I wanted to puke.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius,

      "Thanks MSEE. Regarding Thorton, he lost his posting privileges."

      I hope sometime you may see fit to forgive Thorton. We used to have fun talking hockey. Off topic obviously, but it was fun nonetheless.

      Delete
    5. He used to insult me terribly. Sometimes I felt like I was back in Junior High. But thenI told mysle that her was resorting to insults beacuse he haf no arguments.

      Delete
    6. Thorton was needlessly nasty to natshuster and some others. Otoh, he was the most adamant ID opponent here. I think it's good to have variety of ID opponents around to challenge us.

      Delete
    7. Eugen: Thorton was needlessly nasty to natshuster and some others.

      It isn't necessary to insult others. There's no reason to believe that natschuster and other IDers don't hold their beliefs sincerely.

      Delete
    8. Yes, there are good reasons to believe ID is true.

      Delete
    9. There are better reasons for believing evolution is true, although the two ideas need not necessarily be in direct conflict. Unless ID really is a Trojan horse for smuggling right-wing Protestant theology into the school science classroom.

      As for Thorton, his heart is in the right but he does descend into personalities way too easily. Although in that respect, he's not so different from Joe G or Gerry or a few others on that side of the fence.

      Delete
    10. Yes Ian, ID side has their share of tough guys :)

      Speaking of evolution, I don't focus on presenting evolution in a negative way because I don't have knowledge or authority to do so. Some here may have. My preference is to learn about possible design in biology and by the looks of it elsewhere in Nature.

      Now reading on C.elegans, looks like a crazy little 1000 cell bio-robot. I tell my kids that technology of their fancy cell phones look like a joke comparing to this 1mm critter.( with understanding that technologies are not of the same type or purpose....)

      Delete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: Even the venerable pentadactyl structure failed. As Stephen J. Gould put it, “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly reversed.”

    Certainty about what?

    "The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old "certainty" must be starkly reversed. Only three Devonian tetrapods are known. None has five toes. They bear, respectively, six, seven, and eight digits on their preserved limbs. Five is not a canonical, or archetypal, number of digits for tetrapods -- at least not in the primary sense of 'present from the beginning'. At best (for fans of pentadactyly), five is a later stabilization, not an initial condition."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I certainly did, I commended CH about this post in case you didn't notice (maybe not as much care as I was crediting). And I addressed the topic of a previous contributor's absence, and the topic of a previous thread, specifically your point, using some additional info. So there you have it, 3 for 1. You might consider thanking me; did you know about the wavelet function before?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As usual, the problem cannot simply be explained away as a consequence of methodological problems...
    ...
    Consider how one report explains the new spider study findings:


    "The belief that orb-weaver spiders shared a common origin, Giribet said, came largely from earlier morphological studies.

    Even as new genetic tools became more commonplace in the last two decades, the single origin theory held sway, in part, because early phylogenetic studies relied on just a handful of genes to draw a picture of the spider evolutionary tree."

    Sure looks like methodological advances changed the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem is that there are conflicted signals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds more like trying to piece together history from a great historical distance with limited data, and having a conundrum trying to distinguish the ancestry of closely related organisms. Then, as Pedant points out, methodological advances allowed for higher resolution.

      Delete
    2. No, it's more like running into a conundrum whenever evolutionists try to positively identify anything about how life supposedly evolved, and then having a pliable enough jello-theory to accommodate anything that comes out the other end of this conundrum.

      Delete
    3. Heh, creationists don't even try.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy: No, it's more like running into a conundrum whenever evolutionists try to positively identify anything about how life supposedly evolved

      The basic outline hasn't changed much since Darwin. Filling in the details has been an ongoing project for evolutionary biology.

      Delete
  7. Ever since Darwin this denouement has repeated itself over and over—evolutionists apply their theory to a particular problem, their predictions turn out false, and they respond by accommodating the new findings. Skeptics say the theory is failing and evolutionists say this is just good science at work. Did you expect every prediction to be perfect? Inevitably the debate devolves into one over falsification and unfortunately misses what is really important.

    If evolutionists hewed to Saint Charles' Gospel and cast aside any data that conflicted with the scripture of Origins you would excoriate them for dogmatism - and quite rightly, too. Yet, when biologists try to re-fashion the theory to accommodate new data - which, as good scientists, is exactly what they should be doing - you flay them for that as well. It seems as far as you're concerned they just can't win. Luckily, that doesn't seem to weigh very heavily on the biological community.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Online Business with hourly profit, Just Invest and Rest
    AllTimeProfit.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. As to falsifying a theory of science, empirical evidence is SUPPOSE to have the ability to falsify a theory. Richard Feynman puts it like this:

    The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video
    Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    David Belinski puts the awkward situation with Darwinism in respect to falsification like this:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    The reason why Darwinism is impervious to falsification by empirical evidence is because, despite the shell games played by some Darwinists with population genetics, it has no rigid mathematical basis to be falsified in the first place:

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But even if one relaxes one's constraint on requiring a scientific theory to have a rigid mathematical basis so as provide a falsification criteria to the empirical evidence, and use Lakato's much more broad definition of falsification for a scientific theory, one still finds that Darwinism is a 'degenerating program'

      “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
      – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

      And as Dr. Humter has recently pointed, Darwinism fails on even this broad definition of falsification:

      Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014
      Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony."
      - Cornelius Hunter
      - per 'Darwin's god'

      And these contradictions to Darwin's theory are not just found on the periphery of the evidence being found, but these contradictions penetrate to the very core of Neo-Darwinian theory. Just yesterday, Dr. Behe pointed out that both random mutation and natural selection, instead of being the 'engines of evolution' that Evolutionists envision them to be, are both instead found to be 'grave obstacles' that provide 'overpowering restraints' to Darwinian evolution ever happening:

      The Edge of Evolution: Why Darwin's Mechanism Is Self-Limiting - Michael Behe - July 18, 2014 (Part 3 of 3)
      Excerpt: As science probes ever deeper into the molecular details of life,, grave obstacles to undirected evolution have become manifest. Relatively recent, terrific research using the powerful techniques available to modern biology shows three general, separate barriers to a Darwinian (or, for that matter, to any undirected) evolutionary mechanism.
      (1. random mutation, 2. natural selection, 3. irreducible complexity),,,
      It's important to notice that these three roadblocks are substantially independent of each other. Sequestration of a system to its current function by natural selection is a different problem from the damage done by adaptive-yet-degradative random mutations, both of which are conceptually distinct from the need for multiple, unselected steps to reach some adaptive states. A result of their independence is that they will work synergistically. Undirected evolutionary change faces multiple overpowering restraints.,,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_edge_of_evo087971.html

      Delete
    2. As if that was not bad enough for Darwinist, even deeper falsification to Darwin's theoretical core is found from quantum mechanics.

      Darwinian (materialistic) presuppositions hold that all the information, (and even consciousness), in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, ‘quantum information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is found in molecular biology on a massive scale (in every DNA and Protein molecule).

      Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video
      https://vimeo.com/92405752

      etc.. etc..

      Finding quantum entanglement in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinism's materialistic claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

      Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
      Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
      http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

      Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013
      Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
      http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html

      etc.. etc..

      In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

      Besides providing direct empirical falsification of core theoretical claims of neo-Darwinism, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, (and ‘conserved’) quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious to the Theist:

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Delete
    3. bornagain77: The reason why Darwinism is impervious to falsification by empirical evidence is because, despite the shell games played by some Darwinists with population genetics, it has no rigid mathematical basis to be falsified in the first place

      Population genetics is a mature field, and makes many accurate scientific predictions. The field is also becoming more closely integrated with epidemiology to help determine genetic factors involved in disease.

      bornagain77: Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition

      Cooperation and competition are both important to evolution, as Darwin pointed out. The exact balance depends very much on the particulars.

      Delete
    4. BA77:Darwinian (materialistic) presuppositions hold that all the information, (and even consciousness), in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, ‘quantum information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is found in molecular biology on a massive scale (in every DNA and Protein molecule).

      Apparently, you don't understand what emergent properties are.

      Furthermore, information is local the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics since observers are part of the wave function as well. So, there is no spooky action at a distance.

      Also, recent experiments have indicate that quantum effects are not limited to single photons but can observed in objects that consist of trillions of atoms.

      What arguments do you have for why observers are immune from quantum effects other than incredulity or that it conflicts with specific theological commitments you might hold?

      Delete
  10. Oxford disagrees with you:

    Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011
    Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html

    Perhaps you would like to straighten Oxford out? When you get done with them you can then start on the computer simulations:

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  11. bornagain77: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.

    Heh. Quoting mining a job offering to work with Alan Grafen is probably not likely to lead you to deeper understanding of the issue.

    Selection for fitness may not be for a single trait, as might be naïvely assumed, and even not for the individual especially in social organisms. For instance, antagonistic pleotropy will produce nonoptimal traits that can have high variances in a population.

    Much of this conundrum can be resolved with better definitions, e.g. maximand, and a better understanding of the process. See Grafen, The formal Darwinism project: a mid-term report, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2007: "A key concept in the project is ‘maximand’, and readers with a good understanding of it are encouraged to move on to the next section. When game theory was invented, a central insight was that optimization can be made precise. Informally, one might ask someone to obtain the best possible price for a horse, but also to make sure it goes to a good home. But formally, if we want the best possible price, we cannot choose the kind of person we sell it to; if other factors really matter, we need to incorporate them into the instruction and recognize we did not mean the best possible price. When we formalize optimization, we force ourselves to be clearer about exactly what we mean."

    bornagain77: Perhaps you would like to straighten Oxford out?

    They already sorted it out. The position was to work with Grafen, and he published a paper which answers your objections.

    bornagain77: Mendel’s Accountant

    Mendel's Accountant has a flaw, which is easily determined by anyone with knowledge of Fortran. The algorithm divides the working fitness by a random number, completely obscuring selection.

    work_fitness(i) = work_fitness(i)/(randomnum(1) + 1.d-15)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The problem with this is post is Cornelius fails to explain exactly what he means by "evolutionary expectation" and how it actually conflicts with a necessary consequence of evolutionary theory.

    If fact, his post frames explaining the difference between a prediction and a theory as some kind of failure or impossibility. Why might this be the case?

    For example...

    CH: There literally are thousands of stories like this spider study. Evolutionary expectations fail, evolutionists adjust and move on, explaining that there’s nothing there that falsified evolution, it was merely a particular prediction that was falsified.

    Since he doesn't actually present what explanation was in those cases, and address them, apparently, Cornelius is operating under some philosophical assumption he hasn't disclosed, such as we do *not* make progress by conjecturing theories about how the world works, in reality, taking them seriously for the purpose of criticizing them, and discarding errors we find.

    So, it would seem that Cornelius' objections are themselves based on specific philosophical assumptions about what science is, not science itself, which would be scientism. How does this hold up?

    ReplyDelete
  13. CH: It is true that the predicted failure, alone, does not falsify evolutionary theory. That’s a rather silly notion given how evolution was never confirmed in the first place, and how flexible is the theory.

    This represents the philosophical assumption that science proves theories are true, rather than disproving them and then only tentatively. Check.

    CH: Evolutionists cannot even explain, in any scientific sense, the evolution of a single protein.

    Except, we've provided explanations that meet the criteria of scientific character in specific philosophies of science. So, apparently, his point of disagreement is not actually scientific, but what it means to have scientific character in the first place, which is philosophical. Check.

    CH: Evolution is metaphysically motivated and has always failed on the science.

    Metaphysics, in the sense Cornelius is using it, is an outdated term. Specifically, things that were once considered metaphysical are now part of the branch of the philosophy of science. Check.

    CH: The first problem with such failures is their quantity. There are thousands of such failures. Evolution is consistently coming up short. Its predictions are always wrong and evolutionists are always surprised. To say this steady stream of failure is just a sign of good science is an incredible euphemism.

    Given that one of our recent counts estimate there are 8.7 million species, and that more than 80% have yet to be been uncovered, why would this be unexpected? In fact, I'd suggest that we purposely conjecture specific evolutionary trees for the purpose of finding them wrong.

    IOW, Cornelius is disingenuously trying to conflate being surprised about how a particular prediction fails and being surprised if prediction fails at all. Being surprised about how predictions fail is how we make progress. If we were never surprised, then how would we learn new things?

    CH: The second problem with such failures is that they cause the theory to lose parsimony. With each failed prediction, the theory becomes far more complicated as patches and epicycles are added.

    Parsimony is a specific case of the criteria that a good explanation is one that cannot me modified without it significantly impacting it's ability to explain the phenomena in question.

    Convergent evolution doesn't fail this criteria because good ideas are good regardless of their source. They play a causal role in their own preservation, which is a key point of explanation in evolutionary theory. Specifically, the unit of replication isn't just organisms, but individual genes. As someone who would teach college level biology, it's unclear why Cornelius wouldn't at least be aware of this and address it here. Apparently, he objects to this of philosophical grounds? Check.

    CH: These failed predictions cause evolution to lose its smoking gun.

    Smoking guns only appear to be smoking in hindsight, as what now appear to be obvious explanations for observations simply didn't exist in the past. As such, it's unclear how they be obvious. If they were, we could simply and mechanically generalize them from observations. But no one has formulated a "principle of indiction" that actually works, in practice.

    Again, this is yet another philosophical objection, not scientific. Furthermore, Cornelius has yet to actually disclose what kind of empiricist he supposedly is or argued for it. So, apparently, he thinks empiricism is obvious, which is circular. We are justified in being empiricists because we experience empiricism working.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Grafen paper is useless. Then again if Darwin's theory were true, we could have computers program themselves far past what humans can accomplish. But such common sense is lost on Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
    Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

    The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
    Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory!
    http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  16. bornagain77: The Grafen paper is useless.

    Handwaving.

    bornagain77: With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory

    Changing the subject is not an argument. Try replying substantively to our previous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Then again if Darwin's theory were true, we could have computers program themselves far past what humans can accomplish. But such common sense is lost on Darwinists.

    Common sense tells us that the earth is flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Trying this for the second time)

      Common sense tells us the Sun orbits the earth

      Common sense tells us that computers are not self-replicating organism that experience constant random mutations and can adapt to their environment.

      Common sense tells us not to push analogies too far.

      But then neo-Paleyists were never big on common sense.

      Delete
  18. The Grafen paper is useless.

    Handwaving.

    Really? perhaps you would like to show where more information is generated by the math?

    “The computer is not going to generate anything realistic if it uses Darwinian mechanisms.”
    Dr. David Berlinski: Accounting for Variations - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf

    Before They've Even Seen Stephen Meyer's New Book, Darwinists Waste No Time in Criticizing Darwin's Doubt - William A. Dembski - April 4, 2013
    Excerpt:
    "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
    "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061
    For other papers that Marks, his students, and I have done to extend the results in these papers, visit the publications page at www.evoinfo.org
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/before_theyve_e070821.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. By the way, since I don't expect Zach to ever be honest to the evidence, that is my last post on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. correction: last post on this thread

    ReplyDelete
  21. bornagain77: perhaps you would like to show where more information is generated by the math?

    That wasn't the claim implied by your quote-mine, which was that population genetics can't explain optimization. The answer is that optimization is the wrong measure. Rather, evolution balances many competing factors, which is clear from reading the primary literature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel said
      "The answer is that optimization is the wrong measure. Rather, evolution balances many competing factors, which is clear from reading the primary literature"

      But in the comments in the other post, your answere were optimization. To explain the protein-protein binding capacity you claimed that there was an optimization process. A very particular optimization process, a process guided like a river "working" in order to go to the lower energy state possible.

      Delete
    2. Blas: But in the comments in the other post, your answere were optimization.

      "A key concept in the project is ‘maximand’, and readers with a good understanding of it are encouraged to move on to the next section. When game theory was invented, a central insight was that optimization can be made precise."

      Delete
    3. Well thenis optimization a good measure or not? A river do not apply "maximand" has only one goal.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "Optimization can be made precise."

      Evolution doesn't optimize the gazelle just for speed, but also agility, alertness, calorie minimization, sociability, reproduction, etc.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel said:
      "Evolution doesn't optimize the gazelle just for speed, but also agility, alertness, calorie minimization, sociability, reproduction, etc."

      First evolution is not a subject that can set different goals in order to optimize the gazelle for speed agility alertness ...
      The organism gazzelle or better the population of gazzelle result optimized by a process led by what?

      Delete
    7. Blas: First evolution is not a subject that can set different goals in order to optimize the gazelle for speed agility alertness

      No, but in order to optimize long term reproductive success, evolution balances many different factors, not just speed as might be naïvely assumed. In can lead to stable but diverse populations, even including individuals with disadvantageous traits.

      Blas: The organism gazzelle or better the population of gazzelle result optimized by a process led by what?

      Fecundity, variation, selection.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel said

      "No, but in order to optimize long term reproductive success, evolution balances many different factors, not just speed as might be naïvely assumed. In can lead to stable but diverse populations, even including individuals with disadvantageous traits."

      Then like a river working in order to reach the lower energy level the gazzelle population "works" (optimize) different factors in order to reach the better long term reproductive success.

      Is that correct?

      Delete
    9. Blas: Then like a river working in order to reach the lower energy level the gazzelle population "works" (optimize) different factors in order to reach the better long term reproductive success.

      Rivers don't reproduce.

      Delete
    10. Zachriel said
      "Blas: Then like a river working in order to reach the lower energy level the gazzelle population "works" (optimize) different factors in order to reach the better long term reproductive success.

      Zachriel: Rivers don't reproduce."

      River was your example of natural optimization process. Otimization is a process that needs a goal in order to move towards. If optimization of life system exists you need a goal. Which is that goal?

      Delete
    11. Blas: River was your example of natural optimization process.

      A river tends to reduce total potential energy. Life tends towards successful reproduction. Not that difficult.

      Delete
    12. Zachriel said
      "A river tends to reduce total potential energy. Life tends towards successful reproduction. Not that difficult."

      The difficult I see is that life forms has "over optimized" system that has marginal value to achieve successful reproduction. I would expect more "good enough" systems.
      The second difficult is if the driver is successful reproduction I do not see what make a bacteria become an Euchariote.
      I have a third difficult but it is related with OOL not darwinism.

      Delete
    13. Blas: The difficult I see is that life forms has "over optimized" system that has marginal value to achieve successful reproduction.

      If they weren't successful, they wouldn't be around.

      Blas: The second difficult is if the driver is successful reproduction I do not see what make a bacteria become an Euchariote.

      Some eukaryotes eat bacteria for lunch.

      Delete
    14. ""Blas: The difficult I see is that life forms has "over optimized" system that has marginal value to achieve successful reproduction."

      If they weren't successful, they wouldn't be around."

      I think the point is that they didn't have to be so optimized in order to be successful. For example, humpback whales don;t rally need those bumps on the leading of of there fins.

      And in order to go from bacteria to eukaryote, don;t you need to do a lot more than just eat the bacteria? Don't eukaryotes have lots of other organielles and proteins and such that the need in order to be eukaryotes?

      Delete
    15. natschuster: For example, humpback whales don;t rally need those bumps on the leading of of there fins.

      Actually, those bumps, called tubercles, increase efficiency and agility. That means it takes less energy during migrations or when diving. This effect is amplified by sexual selection. Who are you going to preferentially mate with? The skinny one who struggles to keep up, or the strong and agile one?

      natschuster: Don't eukaryotes have lots of other organielles and proteins and such that the need in order to be eukaryotes?

      Modern eukaryotes are very complex, however, your concern was why would life bother? It's just another niche. If the world is full of sheep, then wolves can make a living.

      Delete
    16. But why is there optimal stuff if life doesn't evolve towards optimization?

      And if the whole point is reproductive success, why would bacteria, which are really good at reproducing, bother becoming eukaryotes.

      Delete
    17. natschuster: But why is there optimal stuff if life doesn't evolve towards optimization?

      Life isn't necessarily optimal. There's usually a great deal of variation in any population.

      natschuster: And if the whole point is reproductive success, why would bacteria, which are really good at reproducing, bother becoming eukaryotes.

      If the world is full of sheep, then wolves can make a living.

      Delete
    18. natschuster said

      "If they weren't successful, they wouldn't be around."

      And they are around because they reproduce successfully.

      The essence of darwinism.


      Zachriel said

      "If the world is full of sheep, then wolves can make a living."

      And the wolves can make a living because the world is full of sheeps.

      Delete
    19. Blas: The essence of darwinism.

      Actually, darwinism proposes a specific causal relationship between fecundity, variation, and selection.

      Blas: And the wolves can make a living because the world is full of sheeps.

      That's right. So where there was one occupation in the ecosystem, now there are two. Over time, a web of relationships can build into a complex web of interactions.
      http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/16/this-will-shatter-your-view-of-apex-predators-how-wolves-change-rivers/


      Delete
  22. Robertson excerpt: For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.

    See : http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/david-deutsch-artificial-intelligence/

    People are universal explainers. What we don't understand is how people create new explanations in the form of explanatory knowledge. A true general artificial intelligence (GAI) would be a person as well because it could create new explanations.

    So, what we need for GAI isn't a breakthrough in faster computers that can hold more existing explanations for it to choose from, but a breakthrough in philosophy about how we create new explanations. We cannot program something we do not yet understand.

    However, evolutionary theory doesn't create explanatory knowledge. It creates non-explanatory knowledge, which takes the form of useful rules of thumb. This is something that evolutionary algorithms can create and demonstrate.

    So, this entire line of argument is narrow in scope because it doesn't differentiate between explanatory and non-explanatory knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Getting back to spider genetics, is the orb weaver an exception or the rule in determining spider ancestry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can most spider genomes be traced back to a common spider ancestor, or are there the sort of gaps that we find in the orb weavers?

      Delete
    2. Bilbo,

      That wouldn't be a rule. It would be an assessment specific to the history of spiders. And it would be tentative because we likely will discover new species and develop even more advanced methods of comparison.

      Furthermore, Biological Darwinism creates new non-explanatory knowledge. That's a key part of the theory, or a rule if you like. So, exception to the rule would be to find explanatory knowledge in the genome of an organism. Or, finding a complex feature with survival benefit that had completely no precursors in their ancestors. For example, the ability to detect and use wireless internet weather forecasts to determine when to hibernate.

      Since we cannot predict the impact of the genuine growth of new knowledge, we cannot mathematically predict what features will appear or how they will interact with other features beyond a very short horizon.

      That unpredictability itself, however, would be a rule that does extend beyond that horizon.

      Delete
    3. Hi Scott,

      Neo-Darwinism does make the prediction that genetic ancestry can be determined. Thus, if all spiders share a common spider ancestor, then we should be able to trace that ancestry by comparing the genomes of various species of spiders. That is why the fact that the different orb weavers do not come from the same common ancestor is a problem for neo-Darwinism. If the different ancestry of orb weavers is an exception in spider genealogy, then it is a minor problem. If it is not an exception but a general rule that spider ancestry cannot be traced to a common ancestor, then it becomes a very big problem for neo-Darwinism, indeed. So before we can assess how much of a problem the orb weaver ancestry is for neo-Darwinism, we need to know if it is the exception or the rule among spiders.

      Delete
    4. Bilbo: Neo-Darwinism does make the prediction that genetic ancestry can be determined.

      Not necessarily. Determining ancestry depends on the availability of data. There's a resolution issue also.

      Bilbo: That is why the fact that the different orb weavers do not come from the same common ancestor is a problem for neo-Darwinism.

      They do have a common ancestor, it's just that orb-weaving isn't monophyletic within spiders. Rather, two separate lines (apparently) evolved orb-weaving.

      Delete
  24. Hi Zach,

    Yes, I should have mentioned the availability of data. We know that orb-weavers have a common ancestor, or we are assuming that they have a common ancestor? And do we know that all spiders have a common spider ancestor, or are we assuming that all spiders have a common spider ancestor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bilbo: We know that orb-weavers have a common ancestor, or we are assuming that they have a common ancestor?

      The data supports spiders having a common ancestor. There are two models.

      Orb-weaving evolved once, and all orb-weavers descended from this common ancestor.

      Original spider
      Original Weaver, other spiders
      Two lines of Weavers, other spiders

      or two separate lineages of spider evolved orb-weaving.

      Original spider
      Line1, Line2, other spiders
      Line1Weaver, Line2Weaver, other spiders

      Delete
    2. Zach: The data supports spiders having a common ancestor.

      Then I would say that two lines of orb-weavers is a minor problem for neo-Darwinism that can be solved by invoking convergence, which if not overused seems an acceptable solution.

      Delete
    3. Keep in mind that many insect larvae also spin silk, so it's not such a leap to think the capability might have evolved twice in spiders.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. At first I agreed with you. But I should say that what needs to be done is the sort of research that Thornton's group has done on determining the steps needed to evolve one protein from another. So we need to know what the evolutionary history was before we can say for sure that it is or is not a leap to think neo-Darwinism can account for this convergence.

      Delete
    6. Bilbo: So we need to know what the evolutionary history was before we can say for sure that it is or is not a leap to think neo-Darwinism can account for this convergence.

      The cited paper helps answer the historical question.

      Delete
    7. Not having looked at the paper, I assume it involved a comparison of genetic information. I think this can establish common ancestry, which even Behe argued for. What Behe questioned was whether neo-Darwinian mechanisms can account for most of evolution. So what is needed for that is the kind of research that Thornton's group did on one particular protein, showing that it neo-Darwinian mechanisms could account for its evolution from an ancestral protein. But they also showed that neo-Darwinian mechanisms wouldn't be able to evolve the present protein back into its ancestor. We need the same kind of study in the case of the orb-weavers, to know if neo-Darwinism can account for the two lines, or if some other mechanism needs to be invoked.

      Delete
    8. Bilbo: We need the same kind of study in the case of the orb-weavers, to know if neo-Darwinism can account for the two lines, or if some other mechanism needs to be invoked.

      Neodarwinism is dated. In any case, we're probably never going to be able to reconstruct the history of every evolutionary event. That isn't necessary in order to reach some valid conclusions about that history, including common descent, and the basic mechanisms of protein evolution.

      Delete
  25. Online Business with hourly profit, Just Invest and Rest
    AllTimeProfit.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Spedding: There are better reasons for believing evolution is true, although the two ideas need not necessarily be in direct conflict. Unless ID really is a Trojan horse for smuggling right-wing Protestant theology into the school science classroom.

    As for Thorton, his heart is in the right but he does descend into personalities way too easily. Although in that respect, he's not so different from Joe G or Gerry or a few others on that side of the fence.


    Of course there are better reasons for believing Darwinian evolution, for any person of your belief system looking out from the cage of scientific materialism.

    And really now we can all have a good laugh at your "Trojan horse" gaffe, you know since materialism in the form of Darwinism and the personality cult that it is, has been the monopolistic Big Horse to smuggle materialism into the minds of our students. So that you will have plenty company in your cage with you hoping for 'temporal' existence to make sense.

    And we can see how that hope worked out for our favorite 50 year old former contributor and his refusal to take interest in self examination and pitifully how it made him appear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEEOf course there are better reasons for believing Darwinian evolution, for any person of your belief system looking out from the cage of scientific materialism.

      It's an interesting question as to who is outside the bars and who is behind them. I'd say you are shackled to you religious dogma which doesn't allow you to travel any distance at all from the Given Truth.

      MSEEAnd really now we can all have a good laugh at your "Trojan horse" gaffe, you know since materialism in the form of Darwinism and the personality cult that it is, has been the monopolistic Big Horse to smuggle materialism into the minds of our students. So that you will have plenty company in your cage with you hoping for 'temporal' existence to make sense.

      Strangely, it's the critics of evolution that have turned Darwin into a cult figure. For modern evolutionary biologists, he is more of historical significance, greatly respected for having laid the foundations of the field, but it has moved a long way beyond his original concept.

      As for your bogies of materialism or naturalism, show us that the alternatives are something other than the meaningless negations of those concepts and we will be glad to consider them.

      MSEEAnd we can see how that hope worked out for our favorite 50 year old former contributor and his refusal to take interest in self examination and pitifully how it made him appear.

      I'm sure we could all benefit from unflinching self-examination. Not many of us are prepared to try it, it seems.

      Delete
  28. And really now we can all have a good laugh at your "Trojan horse" gaffe, you know since materialism in the form of Darwinism

    Evolution assumes methodological naturalism as a pragmatic choice,as does all science. How are immaterial causes accounted for and detected in electrical engineering?

    as been the monopolistic Big Horse to smuggle materialism into the minds of our students

    Unless things have changed,the only biology that affects students minds does not come from a biology class. Better to blame capitalism for materialism than biology. After all the only true religion accepts an evolutionary account.

    And we can see how that hope worked out for our favorite 50 year old former contributor

    The timeline points to another cause for exile.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      "Keep in mind that many insect larvae also spin silk, so it's not such a leap to think the capability might have evolved twice in spiders."

      But that is presupposing the ability to spin silk evolved in the first place. Can you demonstrate the ability to spin silk evolved?

      Delete
    2. Nic: But that is presupposing the ability to spin silk evolved in the first place.

      Yes, the thread is about a study which tentatively shows it evolved twice in spiders.

      Nic: Can you demonstrate the ability to spin silk evolved?

      See Garb et al., Untangling spider silk evolution with spidroin terminal domains, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      Nic: "Can you demonstrate the ability to spin silk evolved?"

      Zachriel: "See Garb et al., Untangling spider silk evolution with spidroin terminal domains, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010."

      This study is like virtually every study vis a vis evolution. It comes no where near demonstrating the ability to spin silk evolved. It simply asserts evolution and proceeds to explain how they think it evolved. Evolution is assumed, the only subject being considered is how it evolved. I suppose you see no problem with that approach.

      Delete
    4. Nic: It simply asserts evolution and proceeds to explain how they think it evolved.

      It shows a nested hierarchy of silk proteins, as expected from common descent.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel,

      Nic: "It simply asserts evolution and proceeds to explain how they think it evolved."

      Zachriel: "It shows a nested hierarchy of silk proteins, as expected from common descent."

      No, Zachriel, it does nothing more than assert that the ability to spin silk evolved. It does so in the abstract. It then proceeds to 'spin' stories as to how this came about.

      In regards to the 'nested hierarchy' nonsense, I've already clearly demonstrated such patterns are completely compatible with design. As such I am not going there again. So if your only line of reasoning is going down that path, I'm not interested.

      You'll have to come up with something more convincing. I doubt very much you can as you have proven to be pretty much a one trick pony. Branching descent with modification and nested hierarchies, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

      Delete
    6. Nic: No, Zachriel, it does nothing more than assert that the ability to spin silk evolved.

      They determined phylogeny based on the spidroin N- and C-terminal domains. A nested hierarchy is predicted from common descent.

      Nic: As such I am not going there again.

      You haven't been able to provide a simple nested hierarchy, even with prodding. It's not clear you understand the pattern.

      Nic: So if your only line of reasoning is going down that path, I'm not interested.

      The observation of nested hierarchy has been crucial evidence for evolutionary theory since Darwin. Waving your hands won't make it go away.

      Delete
    7. Waving your hands won't make it go away.

      Closing your eyes works better.

      Delete
    8. So there is a nested hierarchy except where there isn't. It's kinda like artifacts, with all that overlap.

      Delete
    9. natschuster: So there is a nested hierarchy except where there isn't.

      In biology, there is a strong, objective signal of a single nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    10. Except where there isn't, like the spiders above, the comb jellies, etc. etc etc,

      Delete
    11. natschuster: Except where there isn't, like the spiders above

      Is the Earth a sphere? There's an objective pattern, even if it is not a 100% fit.

      Delete
    12. Zachriel,

      "You haven't been able to provide a simple nested hierarchy, even with prodding. It's not clear you understand the pattern."

      But I did. In fact, as I pointed out you went from saying in June that man made objects tended not to fall into hierarchies because designers tended not to follow such patterns, to saying in July that it was easy to place buildings into nested hierarchies. As such, it's puzzling when you say I could not demonstrate my point that 'nested hierarchies' are natural consequence of design.

      "The observation of nested hierarchy has been crucial evidence for evolutionary theory since Darwin."

      So, since it has been around since Darwin, it must be a good argument? Interesting logic. It was a lousy argument then, it's a lousy argument now, as I clearly demonstrated. That you refuse to accept that fact is irrelevant.

      "Waving your hands won't make it go away."

      Having totally refuted your argument is hardly what I would call hand waving, Zachriel.

      Delete
    13. Nic: But I did.

      We must have missed it. Can you provide it in set form?

      Nic: In fact, as I pointed out you went from saying in June that man made objects tended not to fall into hierarchies because designers tended not to follow such patterns, to saying in July that it was easy to place buildings into nested hierarchies.

      We already explained your misunderstanding. Artifacts do not form a single objective nested hierarchy. That's because there are many equally rational ways to arrange them.

      Nic: So if your only line of reasoning is going down that path, I'm not interested.

      Zachriel: The observation of nested hierarchy has been crucial evidence for evolutionary theory since Darwin.

      Nic: So, since it has been around since Darwin, it must be a good argument?

      No. But as it has been persuasive for generations of biologists, and has even spawned entire disciplines, it is worth consideration.

      Nic: It was a lousy argument then, it's a lousy argument now, as I clearly demonstrated.

      You might start by providing a taxonomic nested hierarchy of artifacts, such as buildings.

      Delete
    14. The nested hierarchy has withstood significant empirical criticism.

      This is not the same as being informed it is true via an authorative source (or sources), or having always having occurred in the past, etc.

      We start out with a problem to solve, conjecture an explanatory theory about how the world works, in reality, that we think could solve it, then submit that conjecture to criticism. In the case of science, this includes tests that take the form of making empirical observations.

      This is in contrast to empiricism, which starts out with observations, which are generalized to form a theory, which is then proven to be true or more probably true using more observations.

      Delete
  29. "As the study explains, the findings demand “a major reevaluation of our current understanding of the spider evolutionary chronicle.”

    Perhaps they should consider a pair (one male and one female) of spiders wormholed in from one of the infinite parallel universes. :)

    ReplyDelete



  30. Find best Online Jobs on Facebook...
    JobzCorner

    ReplyDelete