| Author |
Message |
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:53 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
| Quote: |
Jerry Avins wrote:
Sexual reproduction derives its selective advantage by allowing more
easily mutated genetic material. It tends to mitigate the effects of
(perhaps temporarily useless) mutations and spread the effects of
beneficial ones more widely and rapidly. As we see today in cheetahs
and other endangered populations, a rich and varied gene pool greatly
assists long-term survival. Without sexual reproduction, all
populations would be inbred. Sexual reproduction speeds evolution by
orders of magnitude, Whenever the race to fill new niches is intense,
that's a decided advantage.
This is just the kind of thing that ID proponents point to. Since
reproduction is either sexual or asexual how could the sexual form have
ever evolved given the specialization of cell type and the complex
function required for it? How could one plausibly regress the sexual
reproduction mechanism back to the asexual form? This looks similar to
Behe's irreducable complexity argument.
|
If you start with what is and try to deduce the development, it looks
hopelessly complex. When you carefully look back at what actually was,
details begin to come clear. Not all, but some. For more detail, don't
ask me, ask an expert.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:09 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Richard Dobson wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Cain wrote:
..
This is just the kind of thing that ID proponents point to. Since
reproduction is either sexual or asexual how could the sexual form
have ever evolved given the specialization of cell type and the
complex function required for it? How could one plausibly regress the
sexual reproduction mechanism back to the asexual form? This looks
similar to Behe's irreducable complexity argument.
This is probably an ignorance-revealing question, but: is it actually
graven in stone, axiomatic, etc, that all life must have emerged started
as and evolved from ONE single-celled organism? The primordial soup must
by definition be a pretty complex coctail, with maybe some chaotic
strange-attractor elements, so surely the emergence of more than one
type of single-cell is at least a theoretical possibility. The Origin of
Everything from One is a canonical religious/mystical tenet; but must it
also be a biochemical one. In short - is Mono-Cellism unassailable, or
is Poly-Cellism a possibility?
|
Poly-Cellism is certainly possible. One belief is that considering the
small likelihood of life beginning even once, the likelihood of its
happening twice is remote. With no evidence, I don't think so. I imagine
that the conditions that made the spontaneous development of life all
but inevitable caused it to happen several times. I also believe that
life itself destroys those conditions by expropriating the abundant
resources that must have been part of it. Not all lifeforms would have
developed with equal ability to compete. As those abundant resources --
free amino and ribonucleic acids, among others -- were depletes,
competition may well have eliminated all but one line. For what it's
worth. Just as I don't accept "I don't believe it so it's false," I also
reject "It's plausible, so it's true."
Jerry
P.S. The first part of Nova's current "Science Now" is on artificial
life. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/ is streaming video.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Monro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Jerry Avins wrote:
| Quote: | John Monro wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote:
John Monro wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote:
John Monro wrote:
...
Jerry,
The latter part of your posting concentrates on the moral aspect
of decision making. The similarity to the Christian 'Golden Rule'
is interesting, and this occurs frequently over various cultures.
I take that as evidence of the correctness of the rule, while
recognising that the Intelligent-Design Creationists may take it
as evidence of the Rule's divine origin.
You're right: I got off on a side track. Sorry. As long as I'm
here, a few side comments. While the end of Hillel's dictum is
similar to the Golden Rule, the beginning is more like "God helps
those who help themselves" and the middle could be paraphrased,
"God help those who don't help others!" Judaism makes it a civic
responsibility to help widows, orphans, and the disabled. Hebrew
has no word for charity. "Obligation" stands in for it.
To get back to the issue that started this sub-thread, for
propositions like "evidence matters," there are no moral
principles involved. We have these choices:
1. accept the proposition
2. accept its negation: "evidence does not matter"
3. make no decision.
If we take option (3) we avoid the possibility of error, but at a
cost to our ability to make decisions. One reason why we may
choose this option is because of a belief that neither (1) or (2)
are capable of rigourous philosophical proof.
I believe that neither (1) or (2) are capable of rigorous proof,
but I chose (1) anyhow, on faith. In my sense, at any rate.
...
This leaves proposition (1). Considering the overwhelming amount
of argument (and evidence) available in its support support, its
acceptance can hardly be termed an act of 'faith' in the usual
sense of the word.
I don't see the overwhelming evidence. For all I can prove, we are
figments of one another's imaginations. That philosophical swamp
doesn't matter. If it's true, nothing else matters, so I assume
it's not.
Jerry
P.S. Not all philosophy is divorced from the "real world". Quine,
for example. Morris Cohen. But spare me categorical imperatives.
Jerry,
If you were holding that trump card, why did you not bring it out
earlier in the game and save us all a lot of time?
Regards,
John
John,
I'm at a complete loss. What are you referring to? I try to lay my
cards on the table, not keep them up my sleeve.
Jerry
Jerry,
As I understood your last posting, you were rejecting my argument on
the grounds that it is impossible to prove that we even exist, and
that as a result any philosophical argument that I may present is
irrelevant.
I called your argument (or position) a "trump card" because it defeats
all other arguments. If you maintain that position from the start
there is no point in anyone (extant or not :=)) presenting any
argument at all because they can never argue any proposition to your
satisfaction.
I was not accusing you of keeping anything up your sleeve. A better
metaphor may have been (inspired by the Road-Runner cartoons) "Why did
you wait so long to drop the anvil."
Regards,
John
I didn't intend that. To restate: The argument that we might not exist
isn't worth considering. If it's true, no other position matters. If
nothing matters, there's no point in discussion. We're discussing; that
implicitly rejects the argument. But that's just another way to say that
I take our existence on faith.
Jerry
|
Jerry,
I realised that you were making that point, but since you opened with
the statement "I don't see the overwhelming evidence" I assumed that
what followed was your reason you did not accept the (claimed) evidence,
but understand now that that was not the case.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Richard Dobson wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: | This is probably an ignorance-revealing question, but: is it actually
graven in stone, axiomatic, etc, that all life must have emerged started
as and evolved from ONE single-celled organism? The primordial soup must
by definition be a pretty complex coctail, with maybe some chaotic
strange-attractor elements, so surely the emergence of more than one
type of single-cell is at least a theoretical possibility. The Origin of
Everything from One is a canonical religious/mystical tenet; but must it
also be a biochemical one. In short - is Mono-Cellism unassailable, or
is Poly-Cellism a possibility?
|
This goes back to why the origin of life is so hard to show now.
There may have been many other starts, but they all got eaten up by the
more successful life forms. The origin of the protein translation from
RNA system is believed to have evolved from a simpler system with
fewer amino acids. All organisms with that system likely would have
been eaten by newer ones, though.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry Avins wrote:
(snip)
Those are interesting assertions which I'm tempted to accept without
confirming evidence. How to they address the the reduced sensitivity
that is the result of the receptors being behind the nerves? It isn't
structurally necessary; some invertebrate eyes are assembled that way.
In the Feynman lecture books there is a chapter on this. The suggestion
is that the eye evolved three times, the vertebrate eye, the octopus
(and presumably other relatives), and the compound eye of insects and
their relatives.
|
As far as I know, an octopus's eye is very similar to ours, but with the
sensors facing the light directly.
| Quote: | For smaller organisms the compound (lensless) eye can be shown to be
better than an eye with a lens based on diffraction effects.
|
Yes. The compound, or ommatidial, eye can have much better directional
discrimination that a single-lens/sensor-array eye like ours while using
a biologically practical sensor size.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Jerry Avins wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: | Those are interesting assertions which I'm tempted to accept without
confirming evidence. How to they address the the reduced sensitivity
that is the result of the receptors being behind the nerves? It isn't
structurally necessary; some invertebrate eyes are assembled that way.
|
In the Feynman lecture books there is a chapter on this. The suggestion
is that the eye evolved three times, the vertebrate eye, the octopus
(and presumably other relatives), and the compound eye of insects and
their relatives.
For smaller organisms the compound (lensless) eye can be shown to be
better than an eye with a lens based on diffraction effects.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:35:28 -0700, glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
For smaller organisms the compound (lensless) eye can be shown to be
better than an eye with a lens based on diffraction effects.
|
I don't like "can be shown". If we can't say "is" then an agenda is
showing.
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Laurence Payne wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:35:28 -0700, glen herrmannsfeldt
gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
For smaller organisms the compound (lensless) eye can be shown to be
better than an eye with a lens based on diffraction effects.
I don't like "can be shown". If we can't say "is" then an agenda is
showing.
|
First, I haven't done the calculation recently.
Second, it depends on parameters such as the size of the eye,
the size of the animal, and the wavelengths being considered, all
of which vary, not to mention...
Third, that diffraction is not an exact science.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:36 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Jerry Avins wrote:
| Quote: | glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
|
(snip)
| Quote: | In the Feynman lecture books there is a chapter on this. The suggestion
is that the eye evolved three times, the vertebrate eye, the octopus
(and presumably other relatives), and the compound eye of insects and
their relatives.
As far as I know, an octopus's eye is very similar to ours, but with the
sensors facing the light directly.
|
As well as it was understood in 1962 or so, it evolved separately.
The actual chemicals involved, retinal, most likely evolved once
and was adapted by the various light sensing organs. I believe it,
or a very similar compound came from bacteria, as did many important
parts of our cells. Mitocondria, the parts of the cell that help
supply energy to the cell, and chloroplasts, the part of plant cells
that do photosynthesis were also borrowed from bacteria some years ago.
With the chemicals around, the evolution of the eye around them isn't
so hard to do more than once.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:20 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:23:06 -0700, glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't like "can be shown". If we can't say "is" then an agenda is
showing.
First, I haven't done the calculation recently.
|
No-one expects you to have done the research and measurements
personally :-)
| Quote: |
Second, it depends on parameters such as the size of the eye,
the size of the animal, and the wavelengths being considered, all
of which vary, not to mention...
|
So is it an accepted theory, or one still hedged around with lots of
ifs buts and maybes?
| Quote: |
Third, that diffraction is not an exact science.
|
What - down at the wave/particle level? Agreed, we're not too sure
exactly how it works. But we're pretty clear on what it DOES, surely?
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry Avins wrote:
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
(snip)
In the Feynman lecture books there is a chapter on this. The suggestion
is that the eye evolved three times, the vertebrate eye, the octopus
(and presumably other relatives), and the compound eye of insects and
their relatives.
As far as I know, an octopus's eye is very similar to ours, but with
the sensors facing the light directly.
As well as it was understood in 1962 or so, it evolved separately.
The actual chemicals involved, retinal, most likely evolved once
and was adapted by the various light sensing organs. I believe it,
or a very similar compound came from bacteria, as did many important
parts of our cells. Mitocondria, the parts of the cell that help
supply energy to the cell, and chloroplasts, the part of plant cells
that do photosynthesis were also borrowed from bacteria some years ago.
With the chemicals around, the evolution of the eye around them isn't
so hard to do more than once.
|
In all cases, though, their location is close to the brain. I see that
as convergent evolution.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
Laurence Payne wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:35:28 -0700, glen herrmannsfeldt
gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
For smaller organisms the compound (lensless) eye can be shown to be
better than an eye with a lens based on diffraction effects.
I don't like "can be shown". If we can't say "is" then an agenda is
showing.
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
|
All right, "is" then. See my earlier response to Glenn. (He meant
"refraction", I;m sure.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
| Quote: | ... diffraction is not an exact science.
|
Refraction and diffraction have been pretty well nailed down since
Fresnel's time.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clay S. Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:awo6f.134609$G8.30542@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: | The closest "scientific" analogy I can come up with to explain the Trinity
as "three aspects of the One Being" is the good old duality of the wave
and the particle. No scientist I assume would clain that there are two
distinct kinds of light, one which is a Wave and one which is a Particle.
That would be "poly-lightism".
|
Hello Richard and others,
To throw some light on the issue, photons are spin 1 particles, so by the
standard rules of quantum mechanics, there would then exist three
polarization states. Namely ones with spins of -1,0, and +1. But special
relativity combined with fact that photons travel at the speed of light,
they can only exhibit two polarization states, namely -1 and +1. Light can't
have longitudinal vibrations.
Now if we follow the doctrine that the Holy Trinity represents three aspects
of one being, does this follow the quantum mechanical rule that an
observation[1] forces a collapse of the wavefunction into one of its allowed
states? Or in this case, the Holy Trinity gets reduced to just one of the
three aforementioned aspects?
[1] observation or measurement. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, a
particle is in a super position of eigenstates until a measurement forces it
into an eigenstate of the measurer.
Just food for thought.
Clay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clay S. Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: It's like driving by a car crash. |
|
|
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:G7ednbZePd0IPcDeRVn-og@rcn.net...
| Quote: | Randy Yates wrote:
"Clay S. Turner" <Physics@Bellsouth.net> writes:
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:awo6f.134609$G8.30542@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
The closest "scientific" analogy I can come up with to explain the
Trinity as "three aspects of the One Being" is the good old duality of
the wave and the particle. No scientist I assume would clain that there
are two distinct kinds of light, one which is a Wave and one which is a
Particle. That would be "poly-lightism".
Hello Richard and others,
To throw some light on the issue, photons are spin 1 particles, so by the
standard rules of quantum mechanics, there would then exist three
polarization states. Namely ones with spins of -1,0, and +1. But special
relativity combined with fact that photons travel at the speed of light,
they can only exhibit two polarization states, namely -1 and +1. Light
can't have longitudinal vibrations.
Now if we follow the doctrine that the Holy Trinity represents three
aspects of one being, does this follow the quantum mechanical rule that
an observation[1] forces a collapse of the wavefunction into one of its
allowed states? Or in this case, the Holy Trinity gets reduced to just
one of the three aforementioned aspects?
Interesting analogies!
The particle/wave duality is better, but another analogy is the E-field,
M-field. Each are distinct and yet part of the same physical phenomenom.
For myself. I like the E-field, M-field analogy better. It makes me wonder
though: are they really distinct, or do we lack the ability to perceive
their union?
|
Hello Jerry, Randy and others,
Actually the connection between the E and B fields is held in the EM
potential 4 vector made up of the electric scalar potential and the vector
magnetic potential. Simple translation along an axis converts between the
electric and magnetic potentials. Some like to think that the potentials are
contrivances but the Boehm-Aharonov effect shows that the potentials are
real.
Clay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in