Wounded King

Dear Pz,

Im a dedicated evo-devo advocate and I work on epigenetic gene regulation, but I fear that I am not the hardcore DSTer that you might wish for the post. I was unaware of DST previously, it seems to have many things to reccommend it, not least its close overlaps with evo-devo, sadly it looks a bit too much on the edge of woolly liberal relativism for my tastes.

I guess I wont be antipope after all :boohoo:

pz

What? I've heard criticisms of DST before, but never that one. I'm not even sure what it means.

At least you've heard of "epigenetics". Even if you don't qualify for pope, you're probably in good shape to be a cardinal.

Wounded King

Im quite prepared to believe my interpretation is wrong, my sole understanding of the topic is based on one review paper.

Robert JS, Hall BK, Olson WM.
Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology.
Bioessays. 2001 Oct;23(10):954-62. Review.

The inclusive nature of DST with regard to social and environmental factors seems only one step away from saying that the evolution of sexual dimorphism in man is a result of the repressive nature of western patriarchy.

pz

No. And it never did. Where are you getting this stuff?"Random selection"? What is that?

Look. It's pretty simple. Evolution is not random. No one has claimed that it is, other than creationists. The chirality of biological molecules is not and has never been a problem, because we know that most enzymes have steric specificity. It's harder to make a machine that is able to handle both left- and right-handed widgets than to make one that is specialized to work with only right-handed widgets.You keep saying this sort of thing. What evidence? What's in the cell looks like the product of evolution, if you ask scientists.Variation in chromosome number? No, that's no problem at all. We know in great detail how chromosome numbers can change -- and we can observe it directly in the lab. No magic sky daddy is needed. I don't do it in a few paragraphs on the web, that's for sure.

At the top of this forum, there is a list of basic books in evolutionary biology. Have you read any of them?This is not a good argument. People are working on synthesizing life right now; when they succeed, will you admit the error of your ways? I don't think so.

Also, we are "intelligent designers". It doesn't help your argument that life required an "intelligent designer" to assert that it is impossible for an "intelligent designer" to create life.Neither have you. Scientists have gotten far closer to a good answer in the last century than all the creationists have in the last 5000 years. And just what are you going to study?

pz

That's a nice paper. I think you are misreading it if that is your interpretation.

DST is in large part about getting away from the genecentric view of development and evolution, but it's definitely not po-mo blather.

One of the founding authors of the theory is Oyama, under the influence of Lewontin, but if you're allergic to long-winded, high-minded conceptual writing, stay away from her -- she's a philosopher. You might enjoy West-Eberhard's Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. It's a great read, pretty much straight hard-nosed biology with no airy-fairy whifflings about the western patriarchy at all.

Oolon Colluphid

Huh? Where do you see anyone here disputing the fact of it?
Then I implore you to go to reputable sources. Try this thread for starters. And for the mainstream scientific answers to creationist rhetoric, don’t forget The Talk Origins Archive.
Why? You’ll only be given a heap more to look into! Please, please. Find out a bit more first.
Have we not? Oh, okay, sorry. You may find Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations useful. Also try this bit from Richard Dawkins’s Climbing Mount Improbable

Evolution by natural selection is not a theory of chance. Mutations, the raw material, are (more or less) random, sure. But the crucial bit is selection. Which is, by definition, not random: it is the antithesis of randomness. Evolution works by smearing out the luck required into tiny bits and spreading it out over millions of years.
Because, as far as evolution is concerned, it is not relevant. Not. Relevant.

For all I know or care, the first self-replicating molecule could have come about through chemistry, the hand of god, or have been sneezed ouot of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Evolution is what you get once you have replication and the inevitable competition for resources. Given self-replicating molecules, evolution is the consequence, and is therefore what evolutionary biology covers.

Where the replicators came from is another matter, and one amply covered here before too. But do not confuse the probability of getting replicators with the probability of evolution.
See above.
Logic alone tells me that if there was a designer, he was a malicious ignoramus. Want details? Start here.
Could you define it please?
That definition becomes crucial...
So? <shrug>
We need a definition before we can judge your prediction. (Doesn’t the bible warn us against fortune-tellers and such?)
And cave-dwelling creatures have eyes that don’t work because the designer made them so? And we have an appendix because the designer thought its shape a good idea? And there are telomeres in the middle of the human chromosome 2 just to confuse us?
Nobody has made a star, either, but we’ve seem ‘em form.
Argument from incredulity. Why are you so sure that, “given an eternity of time”, man could not do it? Note, “given an eternity of time”. Not the couple of hundred years max that we’ve had so far.
Be sure to come back when you have.

TTFN, Oolon

RufusAtticus

You have been misled here. The is no scientific controvercy over macroevolution or evolution in general. There is alot of political, religious, and social controvercy over it, but such concerns don't cast doubt on its validity.

Evolution claims nothing about the origin of life. The origin of species on the other hand. . . . Evolution although stochastic is not random in the everyday usage of the term as meaning without bias or trends. The mechanism of selection ensures that there is a major trend in the process of evolution. That trend is that organisms better able to reproduce produce offspring better able to reproduce.

When you get to genetics you'll understand more about this. But to answer your question: polyploidy, aneuploidy, chromosomal fusion and chromosomal fission.

First you need to define "life" for us.

Jim Larmore

Evidently my last reply was not posted , I'll admitt to some ignorance here when it comes to the present theory of evolution. However , I still believe its basically founded on random selection and mutation , right? How come no one wants to debate the origin of life?? I am going to do some studying and enlighten myself on these concepts you all are speaking of so I can intelligently debate you. I would like to ask some questions though before I go hibernate at the library.

No one has really successfully explained the probability problem. A lot has been said about my ignorance on evolution but Math doesn't lie. Do the calculations yourselves. Take 20 amino acids and an average of 300 per protein and see how many combinations are possible.Then statistically calculate the probabilty of this happening by random chaotic natural selection. One statement was made by one of you guys that amino acids do not have to be in an exact sequence for that protein. I don't know where you've observed protein but this is ridiculous. All proteins are very ordered and are as a matter of fact identified by their sequence and structure. Also the levo orientation of the molecules has not been successfully explained either. Both levo and dextro exist in nature but only the levo exist in living systems. If natural selection randomly chooses then we should see an equal number of both in living systems today. To say that they just kept trying until they all were levo doesn't cut it considering the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

My final question is concerned with life. How do you explain life? Man is very intelligent but he cannot replicate even the simplest single celled life. How did it all get started? To suggest it got started with a blind chaotic inanimate primordial soup is insane. If man in all his wisdom can't even make anything but extremely simple proteins how in the world can we accept the fact that dead unintelligent minerals and chemicals could have done even given an eternity of time.

caravelair

damn straight! i second that!

nogods4me

Missouri Synod 1879 or Missouri Synod 1915?