Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[shinningelectr0n]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Like dinosaurs developing feathers for warmth and using them for flight?

I assume this is where the term 'fight or flight' came from? The dinosaurs got tired of fighting?

[shinningelectr0n]

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
DS addresses the first part. Life isn't exactly anti entropy. Life, though metabolism, uses the energy created from substrates which are enroute to a ground state to survive. Therefore life is in actuality a catalyst with the best catalysts being preferred. I have no desire to argue against the mystical possibilities of reality, however.

Life as a catalyst sounds good. In the figurative sense, too.

[MichiganGEL]

Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Evolution helps a species be more successful in its environment, but there is no particular "direction" that it goes.

"Lil Ticked" wrote:
Like dinosaurs devloping feathers for warmth and using them for flight?

MG response:
That scenario poses this problem: Feathers for warmth (down) would be worthless, if not actually detrimental, for flight. Such fluffy down feathers would only add drag to a dinosaur attempting to glide through the air, and so such a dino would fail "flight school." Much more likely, and what apparently *did* happen is evidenced in the flying pterodactyl fossil evidence, i.e., bat-like wings.

Besides, why wouldn't *hair* have been developed to keep Dino warm rather than the more complex feather structure (a la Occam's razor).

[shinningelectr0n]

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Handedness begets handedness. There is a slight predominance of the L enantiomer over the R in reactions. This may be all that was needed.
This link illustrates what happens when a single enantiomer predominates.
http://www.physorg.com/news169375753.html
And then there are catalysts which convert one enantiomer into it's partner.
http://www.physorg.com/news162828115.html

Fascinating stuff. Envisioning abiogenesis scenarios with this in mind makes it even more exciting. Great links.

[Chimney]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
As is often the case, semantics can lead to contention. In this case, it involves 'directionality'. Let's say that I have a vertical labyrinth with a top entrance. I drop a single marble into this device and watch it's downward progression through the side window pane. The marble can take many different paths where some will lead to dead-ends sooner than others or some will actually reach the bottom. This labyrinth can be viewed as a sort of 'filtering' device somewhat like evolution which also has dead-ends and 'goals' reached.
Does this device have a 'direction'? Yes; downward. Does it offer multiple pathways? Yes;by structural design. Is there guiding force? Yes; gravity, structure and physics principles. Is there a goal? Yes; the bottom. Summation: we have directed pathways towards a goal.
If you want to view evolution as a directed pathway filter, you are welcome to do so. You are also free to claim that God created the labyrinth and dropped the first marble into it.
This is a very subjective interpretation, however, and offers us nothing beyond speculation and perhaps a 'feel good' afterglow. There is literally a world of difference between 'direction' and 'directed' and, further, each of these terms can be interpreted differently.
I view ID proponent discussions as an intellectual labyrinth of loose marbles, dead-ends and a lot of noise.

I think I get your point but your analogy is still closed ended, not fairly representing the open and unpredetermined outcome of the evolutionary process. Mr Nietzsche is still assigning a goal to evolution, understandable given his moniker and probable affinity with the concept of "will to power". But it does not stack up. The original Nietzsche said "God is dead" but thinking in "antiGod" terms is still thinking theologically, if you get my point.

God is not dead. Neither are purple elephants.

[Chimney]

MichiganGEL wrote:

Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Evolution helps a species be more successful in its environment, but there is no particular "direction" that it goes.
"Lil Ticked" wrote:
Like dinosaurs devloping feathers for warmth and using them for flight?
MG response:
That scenario poses this problem: Feathers for warmth (down) would be worthless, if not actually detrimental, for flight. Such fluffy down feathers would only add drag to a dinosaur attempting to glide through the air, and so such a dino would fail "flight school." Much more likely, and what apparently *did* happen is evidenced in the flying pterodactyl fossil evidence, i.e., bat-like wings.
Besides, why wouldn't *hair* have been developed to keep Dino warm rather than the more complex feather structure (a la Occam's razor).

MG you are misapplying Occam's Razor. Given observed phenomena, Occam says the simplest explanation consistent with the facts is the one to follow. It does not say "the simplest and most elegant answer to a problem in biology (eg warmth) is the one that will occur". THAT would be "perfect design" and as we see repeatedly, that is not what we observe in the real world.

[shinningelectr0n]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I get your point but your analogy is still closed ended, not fairly representing the open and unpredetermined outcome of the evolutionary process. Mr Nietzsche is still assigning a goal to evolution, understandable given his moniker and probable affinity with the concept of "will to power". But it does not stack up. The original Nietzsche said "God is dead" but thinking in "antiGod" terms is still thinking theologically, if you get my point.
God is not dead. Neither are purple elephants.

I grabbed an analogy closest at hand. I'm lazy that way. You're correct about the death of God and elephants.

[Chimney]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
I grabbed an analogy closest at hand. I'm lazy that way. You're correct about the death of God and elephants.

There may be a market for off the shelf analogies, especially in the corporate boardroom. Maybe we could start a business.

We could even trawl places like topix for fresh sounding phrases and shamelessly sell them. Whole industries have been launched on the apt phrase.

Remember, I only claimed the purple elephants were dead. cheers

[shinningelectr0n]

MichiganGEL wrote:

Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Evolution helps a species be more successful in its environment, but there is no particular "direction" that it goes.
"Lil Ticked" wrote:
Like dinosaurs devloping feathers for warmth and using them for flight?
MG response:
That scenario poses this problem: Feathers for warmth (down) would be worthless, if not actually detrimental, for flight. Such fluffy down feathers would only add drag to a dinosaur attempting to glide through the air, and so such a dino would fail "flight school." Much more likely, and what apparently *did* happen is evidenced in the flying pterodactyl fossil evidence, i.e., bat-like wings.
Besides, why wouldn't *hair* have been developed to keep Dino warm rather than the more complex feather structure (a la Occam's razor).

Hair may have been a transitional trait that later led to feathers. I sense that many folks wrongly envision evolutionary changes occurring rapid fire across a time-line poster hung on their study wall. Myself, I find it difficult to think of any life form in terms of 10's of millions of years and its changing environments along the way. It's tough enough digesting the changes seen in my HS sweetheart. I can't begin to imagine what she'd look like in 500 million years.

[Noodly James]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, that was cool!

Lol, thanks. You guys have managed to keep this particular thread a bastion of open talks, kudos for that!!

[Noodly James]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Fascinating stuff. Envisioning abiogenesis scenarios with this in mind makes it even more exciting. Great links.

If you have an interest in any science, even plain conjecture or education, physorg is great.

[Noodly James]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Hair may have been a transitional trait that later led to feathers. I sense that many folks wrongly envision evolutionary changes occurring rapid fire across a time-line poster hung on their study wall. Myself, I find it difficult to think of any life form in terms of 10's of millions of years and its changing environments along the way. It's tough enough digesting the changes seen in my HS sweetheart. I can't begin to imagine what she'd look like in 500 million years.

You might like this.
"Johnson, Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine chemist Jeffrey Bada (the present Science paper's principal investigator), National Autonomous University of Mexico biologist Antonio Lazcano, Carnegie Institution of Washington chemist James Cleaves, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center astrobiologists Jason Dworkin and Daniel Glavin examined vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. Vials associated with the original, published experiment contained far more organic molecules than Stanley Miller realized -- 14 amino acids and five amines. The 11 vials scientists recovered from the unpublished aspirator experiment, however, produced 22 amino acids and the same five amines at yields comparable to the original experiment."http://www.physorg.com/news143382710.html

[shinningelectr0n]

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
You might like this.
"Johnson, Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine chemist Jeffrey Bada (the present Science paper's principal investigator), National Autonomous University of Mexico biologist Antonio Lazcano, Carnegie Institution of Washington chemist James Cleaves, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center astrobiologists Jason Dworkin and Daniel Glavin examined vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. Vials associated with the original, published experiment contained far more organic molecules than Stanley Miller realized -- 14 amino acids and five amines. The 11 vials scientists recovered from the unpublished aspirator experiment, however, produced 22 amino acids and the same five amines at yields comparable to the original experiment."http://www.physorg.com/news143382710.html

A posthumous discovery. Miller is smiling wherever he is.

[Dogen]

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
If you have an interest in any science, even plain conjecture or education, physorg is great.

I have to agree! Kudos to you Noodly for turning me on to this site a few months back.

[Lil Ticked]

MichiganGEL wrote:

Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Evolution helps a species be more successful in its environment, but there is no particular "direction" that it goes.
"Lil Ticked" wrote:
Like dinosaurs devloping feathers for warmth and using them for flight?
MG response:
That scenario poses this problem: Feathers for warmth (down) would be worthless, if not actually detrimental, for flight. Such fluffy down feathers would only add drag to a dinosaur attempting to glide through the air, and so such a dino would fail "flight school." Much more likely, and what apparently *did* happen is evidenced in the flying pterodactyl fossil evidence, i.e., bat-like wings.
Besides, why wouldn't *hair* have been developed to keep Dino warm rather than the more complex feather structure (a la Occam's razor).

Lizard claws shed light on the evolutionary origin of hair
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008...

[Lil Ticked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratin
I just have one teensy little observation (probably already been cover a hundred times before but)
If hair, scales and feathers are all made of keratin....then isn't possible that....

[Nietzsche]

There is an aspect of evolution that is not operating on DNA. Yes, that is the common understanding and the easiest way to understand how it works, but there is another dimension to it.

There are things that I call multisomatic societies. Examples are colonies of ants, hives of bees, these interesting African moles, certain flocks of birds, and tribes of primates. In these cases evolution is not only working on the level of the DNA, it is also selecting the entire group by virture of its functioning as a whole unit. It is esy to see this with early humans. Nomadic bands have a certain "culture" or way of living and understanding etc, and when they get to certain carrying capacity, let's say 60 to 80 members, they need to divide in half because they cannot collect the necessary food supply that is needed to eep everyone alive. This would be the reproduction on the group level since each tribe has the same culture. Then they contiune to expand into the limited space, competing for the limited resources.

As time goes by there will be a great deal of competition for the lmited resources and it is no accident which tribes are selected by nature to continue and which ones must ceaseto exist. If a culture knows how to make fire, for instance, there would be huge selectionj pressures in favor of those tribes. Same goes for the development of tools and even language. Some of these changes would be in the DNA and that would be a selection pressure that would operate within th tribe itself and others would be on the level of the society.

So you see, it isn't only DNA. Evolution works in many ways. It even operates on the level of entire ecological systems. It makes them harmonious or better, it maximizes the efficient use of all of the available energy contained within the system. So this is another larger level of orgainzation and it constrains the kinds of DNA that can thrive within it. hmmm.

So when you take nature as a whole, its basic substances and how they constrain the way change can take place over time, it isn't so hard to see how the products of evolution are already determined to a certain extent just by virtue of existence itself.

[JPR]

Selective breeding and genetic engineering proves that there are other forces, apart form natural selection, making evolution work.

[Erasmus05]

Nietzsche wrote:

There is an aspect of evolution that is not operating on DNA.

Evolution works at the level of the population. That has always been the case. DNA mutation provides variation within the population, and then natural selection acts at the level of the population.

So you see, it isn't only DNA. Evolution works in many ways. It even operates on the level of entire ecological systems. It makes them harmonious or better, it maximizes the efficient use of all of the available energy contained within the system. So this is another larger level of orgainzation and it constrains the kinds of DNA that can thrive within it. hmmm.

The important bit here is that mutation is not limited. Mutation is independent of fitness. That is, the mechanisms that produce mutations are blind to what the organism needs within the environment. This is why selection is an important mechanism.

So when you take nature as a whole, its basic substances and how they constrain the way change can take place over time, it isn't so hard to see how the products of evolution are already determined to a certain extent just by virtue of existence itself.

At the same time, there are several solutions that will work. IOW, there's many ways to skin a cat. Take wings as an example. Birds, bats, and bees all have different wing types. Eyes also differ drastically from group to group.

[shinningelectr0n]

Nietzsche wrote:

There is an aspect of evolution that is not operating on DNA.

I can appreciate what you're saying but, without the intelligence and elements for societal structure and cohesion found inside of our DNA, human societies wouldn't be experiencing the competitions and survival tactics you mention. And neither would prairie squirrels, bee hives and whale pods. You are too quick to discard the DNA. Societies are not separate from their DNA's.