Is evolution hanging on ?

[Xarog]

You'll bury me in something that doesn't make the claims you do?

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-biological-mechanism-long-term-epigenetic-memories.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-epigenetic-memory.html

At some point, Swa, you're going to have to admit that evidence for all of the necessary components for the structure I am advocating for already exists in the way it would need to exist to enable what I am talking about.

If you have an engine and a gearbox and some tyres and a steering wheel and an indicator, sometimes, just sometimes, they add up to a car.

And just for laughs, why don't you explain why the evidence doesn't actually support the claim I make?

 

[Swa]

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-biological-mechanism-long-term-epigenetic-memories.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-epigenetic-memory.html

At some point, Swa, you're going to have to admit that evidence for all of the necessary components for the structure I am advocating for already exists in the way it would need to exist to enable what I am talking about.

If you have an engine and a gearbox and some tyres and a steering wheel and an indicator, sometimes, just sometimes, they add up to a car.

And just for laughs, why don't you explain why the evidence doesn't actually support the claim I make?

Except it doesn't work that way. You still have to prove the concept of the car. The theories you present are very much still just that and controversial as well. Your idea is still a fringe theory and bombarding me with links in the hopes that one sticks isn't going to change that.

 

[Xarog]

Except it doesn't work that way. You still have to prove the concept of the car. The theories you present are very much still just that and controversial as well. Your idea is still a fringe theory and bombarding me with links in the hopes that one sticks isn't going to change that.

No, I don't have to prove the concept of a car, Swa. I just have to say, behold, a car exists.

What I have shown to exist for a fact is stress initiated mutations which result in the offspring of stressed individuals gaining the necessary mutations to thrive under those stressful conditions, and a memory system which allows this mutation system to react intelligently to its environment.

DNA is just an elegant form of data storage.

 

[Swa]

No, I don't have to prove the concept of a car, Swa. I just have to say, behold, a car exists.

Completely misses the point again. I didn't say YOU have to prove the concept of a car. I said that you can't prove the concept of a car through it's components without having proven the concept of a car independently.

What I have shown to exist for a fact is stress initiated mutations which result in the offspring of stressed individuals gaining the necessary mutations to thrive under those stressful conditions, and a memory system which allows this mutation system to react intelligently to its environment.

DNA is just an elegant form of data storage.

What you have shown doesn't make the claims you make. Anything that does is still fringe theories with little to support them.

 

[Xarog]

Completely misses the point again. I didn't say YOU have to prove the concept of a car. I said that you can't prove the concept of a car through it's components without having proven the concept of a car independently.

Dude, there is no such proof. There is no proof that general relativity is true. We just believe it to be because it describes what we see well. (Although there are nonetheless anomalies in practice).

What you have shown doesn't make the claims you make. Anything that does is still fringe theories with little to support them.

Yes Swa, you can repeat your denial of the obvious until you are blue in the face, but the fact that you can't say why it doesn't show it speaks volumes.

 

[Swa]

Dude, there is no such proof. There is no proof that general relativity is true. We just believe it to be because it describes what we see well. (Although there are nonetheless anomalies in practice).

Dude, I never said absolute proof. You can't claim the components of a car to prove the car. You still need to show it working together as a proof of concept. Incidentally there is enough proof to conclude that general relativity describes what we witness pretty accurately.

Yes Swa, you can repeat your denial of the obvious until you are blue in the face, but the fact that you can't say why it doesn't show it speaks volumes.

You've yet to show how it shows what you claim. None of it makes the claims you do. You can scream that the individual components are sufficient for what you claim till you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that they aren't.

 

[Xarog]

Dude, I never said absolute proof. You can't claim the components of a car to prove the car. You still need to show it working together as a proof of concept. Incidentally there is enough proof to conclude that general relativity describes what we witness pretty accurately.

Lol, that's why there's experiments out in the world that observe how evolution works, Swa. Evolution is the car. I merely pointed out the components and said that together they are powerful enough to manifest intelligent decision making. Any arbitrary examination of bayesian learning as part of AI deep learning would confirm how trivially easy it is to create intelligence from feedback loops. The feedback loop has been shown to exist without question. Environmental effects = epigenetic changes = changes in a regulated mutatiotionary system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology

It's a burgeoning academic field.

Edit:
http://www.decodedscience.org/comparing-genetic-code-dna-binary-code/55476
Practical example of how DNA is data, see?

You've yet to show how it shows what you claim. None of it makes the claims you do. You can scream that the individual components are sufficient for what you claim till you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that they aren't.

So you can't be more specific. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Swa]

Lol, that's why there's experiments out in the world that observe how evolution works, Swa. Evolution is the car. I merely pointed out the components and said that together they are powerful enough to manifest intelligent decision making. Any arbitrary examination of bayesian learning as part of AI deep learning would confirm how trivially easy it is to create intelligence from feedback loops. The feedback loop has been shown to exist without question. Environmental effects = epigenetic changes = changes in a regulated mutatiotionary system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology

It's a burgeoning academic field.

And no experiment to show the system as you claim it to be, not even remotely. So no car iow.

So you can't be more specific. Thanks for clearing that up.

I've been specific enough. You're trying to replace science and logic with your own version of it again.

 

[Xarog]

And no experiment to show the system as you claim it to be, not even remotely. So no car iow.

There's no experiment to show that gravity is as Einstein claims it to be, either. There are only predictions. This system successfully predicts many features of life as we see it today. It is possible and humans themselves have copied this idea in their implementation of deep learning systems, which serves as practical proof of concept. It is in fact trivially easy to arrange this in any data processing system, nevermind one powerful enough to store the code needed to literally build up the human brain from scratch.

I've been specific enough. You're trying to replace science and logic with your own version of it again.

Everyone has their own version of science and logic. In some cases, those versions reasonably co-incide. So once again you're going to have to be more specific. You have to demonstrate the logical and scientific fallacies, not merely claim that they exist.

Believe it or not, Swa, but in reality, science by induction is a thing.

 

[Swa]

There's no experiment to show that gravity is as Einstein claims it to be, either. There are only predictions. This system successfully predicts many features of life as we see it today. It is possible and humans themselves have copied this idea in their implementation of deep learning systems, which serves as practical proof of concept. It is in fact trivially easy to arrange this in any data processing system, nevermind one powerful enough to store the code needed to literally build up the human brain from scratch.

Except we have the data to show it as a working model that accurately describes what we witness. You keep on ignoring that and coming up with all these red herrings because you don't have the same for your fringe theories.

Everyone has their own version of science and logic. In some cases, those versions reasonably co-incide. So once again you're going to have to be more specific. You have to demonstrate the logical and scientific fallacies, not merely claim that they exist.

Believe it or not, Swa, but in reality, science by induction is a thing.

And if their version claimed that 1+1=3 I don't have to explain why their version is wrong. I've been specific enough. You keep claiming that the components prove your fringe theories but that's not how it works. Believe it or not, Xarog, but in reality science by induction isn't what you're employing.

 

[Xarog]

Except we have the data to show it as a working model that accurately describes what we witness. You keep on ignoring that and coming up with all these red herrings because you don't have the same for your fringe theories.

What I have is proof that you didn't even read the things you dismiss.

Try to read it this time:
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html

And if you come back, please don't do so until you have evolved a more credible argument.

And if their version claimed that 1+1=3 I don't have to explain why their version is wrong. I've been specific enough. You keep claiming that the components prove your fringe theories but that's not how it works. Believe it or not, Xarog, but in reality science by induction isn't what you're employing.

You haven't been specific at all. You've asserted it to be so without providing anything to justify your conclusions.

And actually Swa, if you want to claim that one plus one does not equal three, you have to substantiate your claim. The burden of proof becomes yours.

 

[Swa]

What I have is proof that you didn't even read the things you dismiss.

Try to read it this time:
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html

And if you come back, please don't do so until you have evolved a more credible argument.

I've never said the environment can't have an effect on change. And what does Paul Kammerer have to do with it? The article says 'suggests', that's far from being proven. Even if he didn't fake his experiments it doesn't even suggest what you are claiming. I've read the abstracts of your previous links and they don't claim what you are claiming. If you think they do you are the one that either didn't read them or didn't understand them.

Incidentally the article makes mention that if Kammerer was correct them so was Darwin, thereby contradicting you stance that Darwin was wrong. So do you even know what you are arguing here or are you just chucking out stuff in the hope that something sticks?

You haven't been specific at all. You've asserted it to be so without providing anything to justify your conclusions.

And actually Swa, if you want to claim that one plus one does not equal three, you have to substantiate your claim. The burden of proof becomes yours.

You're the one who just keeps on asserting that the parts make the whole without being able to justify your conclusion. I keep on explaining this to you but you just keep on ignoring that and just continue making the claim. You're the one not understanding burden of proof.

 

[Xarog]

I've never said the environment can't have an effect on change. And what does Paul Kammerer have to do with it? The article says 'suggests', that's far from being proven. Even if he didn't fake his experiments it doesn't even suggest what you are claiming. If you think they do you are the one that either didn't read them or didn't understand them.

The article speaks about an experiment, and the results of the experiment. The data of the experiment shows evidence of an intelligent selecting mechanism preparing the next generation according to the conditions of the previous generation.

I've read the abstracts of your previous links.

BS.

Incidentally the article makes mention that if Kammerer was correct them so was Darwin, thereby contradicting you stance that Darwin was wrong. So do you even know what you are arguing here or are you just chucking out stuff in the hope that something sticks?

Does Kramer assert that it was happening via an intelligent process? No. Does the experiment he performed fit perfectly with what would be expected if an intelligent process was making choices about phenotypical expression? Yes.

You're the one who just keeps on asserting that the parts make the whole without being able to justify your conclusion. I keep on explaining this to you but you just keep on ignoring that and just continue making the claim. You're the one not understanding burden of proof.

I have postulated a selecting mechanism. I have listed all the parts necessary for such a mechanism to in fact exist, as demonstrated by human experimentation. I have then shown how DNA and epigenetic systems have all the necessary technical requirements needed to manifest such a system, and I have shown how observations in the real world show that the evolution of genomes is consistent with a model of evolution where this selecting mechanism exists.

You might think that in reality the truth is different, but to say that I have not in fact made my case without showing what is lacking in this description is to show that you don't actually have any idea as to what could be wrong with it. You're just spewing FUD.

 

[Swa]

The article speaks about an experiment, and the results of the experiment. The data of the experiment shows evidence of an intelligent selecting mechanism preparing the next generation according to the conditions of the previous generation.

That's your interpretation of it.

BS.

So now you're telling me what I did or didn't do. SCREW YOU!

Does Kramer assert that it was happening via an intelligent process? No. Does the experiment he performed fit perfectly with what would be expected if an intelligent process was making choices about phenotypical expression? Yes.

It also fits plenty of other processes which you can't exclude. Lamarckism is you hitting your toe till it bends so your children inherits a bent toe because straight toes are a hassle. No intelligent process needed and epigenetic inheritance is also not Lamarckism.

I have postulated a selecting mechanism. I have listed all the parts necessary for such a mechanism to in fact exist, as demonstrated by human experimentation. I have then shown how DNA and epigenetic systems have all the necessary technical requirements needed to manifest such a system, and I have shown how observations in the real world show that the evolution of genomes is consistent with a model of evolution where this selecting mechanism exists.

You might think that in reality the truth is different, but to say that I have not in fact made my case without showing what is lacking in this description is to show that you don't actually have any idea as to what could be wrong with it. You're just spewing FUD.

Well done then. Write a peer reviewed paper where you show all of it actually working together like you claim it does. You'll be famous.

 

[Xarog]

That's your interpretation of it.

And it's a valid one.

So now you're telling me what I did or didn't do. SCREW YOU!

I looked at the timestamps of the responses. Get angry all you like, but people don't read that quickly.

It also fits plenty of other processes which you can't exclude. Lamarckism is you hitting your toe till it bends so your children inherits a bent toe because straight toes are a hassle. No intelligent process needed and epigenetic inheritance is also not Lamarckism.

I'm not arguing in favour of Lamackism though. I'm saying that a couple of scientists took his results and showed that it is actually in agreement with contemporary findings with respect to epigenetics. Your point is irrelevant.

Well done then. Write a peer reviewed paper where you show all of it actually working together like you claim it does. You'll be famous.

Well, someone will. Maybe I'll get around to it sometime. For the moment, I have other priorities.

 

[Swa]

And it's a valid one.

You're the only one thinking that again.

I looked at the timestamps of the responses. Get angry all you like, but people don't read that quickly.

So now you're making claims about how fast people can read? An abstract isn't an explanation of rocket science. You're not worth getting angry over btw.

I'm not arguing in favour of Lamackism though. I'm saying that a couple of scientists took his results and showed that it is actually in agreement with contemporary findings with respect to epigenetics. Your point is irrelevant.

The article is irrelevant to what you claim. Krammerer was trying to show Lamarckism. He wasn't trying to show an intelligent mechanism for creatures adapting. To try and portray it as such is dishonest.

Well, someone will. Maybe I'll get around to it sometime. For the moment, I have other priorities.

I'll wait for when it's actually done and accepted as more than a fringe theory. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't hold my breath though.

 

[Xarog]

You're the only one thinking that again.

If you say so.

So now you're making claims about how fast people can read? An abstract isn't an explanation of rocket science. You're not worth getting angry over btw.

You're responding so quickly to what is being posted that you don't actually have the time to process what you are dealing with.

The article is irrelevant to what you claim. Krammerer was trying to show Lamarckism. He wasn't trying to show an intelligent mechanism for creatures adapting. To try and portray it as such is dishonest.

You're right. He was accused of being a fraud because of what he reported. Now, contemporary scientists have taken his work and published a new scientific paper that isn't actually based on either Krammerer's or Lamarck's theories. It's just a demonstration of contemporary scientists seeing the results in question and going "oh, that's consistent with epigenetic selection".

In fact, to quote:

It is no secret that even today, the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" is often treated as an impossibility, supposedly discarded by experiments such as the amputation of the tail of mice during successive generations, which never leads to mice being born without tails. It was argued that no special mechanism existed by which environmental change could directly modify inheritance, and that every apparent case could be ultimately explained by indirect effects of natural selection and conventional genetics. But these views started to change drastically since the 1990's, along with the progress in techniques to study molecular genetics. These uncovered several molecular mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, that could directly change inheritance in response to the environment. The modern field of epigenetics studies those changes in gene expression that do not involve a mutation, but are nevertheless inherited in absence of the signal or event that initiated the change. During the 21st century, experiments in mice have reported such inheritable modifications, identifying the relevant genes that have been altered by epigenetic mechanisms.

But Swa reads so well, he makes arguments the article in question has already addressed.

I'll wait for when it's actually done and accepted as more than a fringe theory. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't hold my breath though.

Suit yourself. I really don't care what you believe. I only expect you to substantiate your criticisms insofar as you try to offer them.

 

[Swa]

You're responding so quickly to what is being posted that you don't actually have the time to process what you are dealing with.

Now you're claiming how quick I can process.

You're right. He was accused of being a fraud because of what he reported. Now, contemporary scientists have taken his work and published a new scientific paper that isn't actually based on either Krammerer's or Lamarck's theories. It's just a demonstration of contemporary scientists seeing the results in question and going "oh, that's consistent with epigenetic selection".

Then use the original published research. But you won't because it doesn't make the claims you do.

In fact, to quote:

But Swa reads so well, he makes arguments the article in question has already addressed.

Again, I don't deny epigenetic inheritance, which is something different to what you are claiming. I specifically said and addressed this but hey, I'm the one lacking reading and comprehension skills.

Suit yourself. I really don't care what you believe. I only expect you to substantiate your criticisms insofar as you try to offer them.

I expect you to substantiate your claims.

 

[Xarog]

Now you're claiming how quick I can process.

Yup.

Then use the original published research. But you won't because it doesn't make the claims you do.

You're right, it didn't make the same claims. Other researchers have subsequently used contemporary knowledge about genetics and epigenetics to argue that the observations the experiment made were valid. It doesn't say anything about the theory regarding those observations.

Your insistence that I must refer to the original research is thus nonsensical.

Again, I don't deny epigenetic inheritance, which is something different to what you are claiming. I specifically said and addressed this but hey, I'm the one lacking reading and comprehension skills.

Not inheritance, mutation provoked through inheritance.

During the 21st century, experiments in mice have reported such inheritable modifications, identifying the relevant genes that have been altered by epigenetic mechanisms.

In other words, the genome reacted to the epigenetic inheritance. Can you respond to the claims actually being made for a change instead of inventing your own interpretations and relentlessly pushing your I win button after knocking the straw men down?

I expect you to substantiate your claims.

I have, it is up to you to say, explicitly, what is lacking in these substantiations, not merely to claim that their is not substantiation without offering anything to substantiate your own claim.

Indeed, to start with, why don't you explain to me in your own words what you think it is that I am claiming, and what principles you think I am basing my argument on.

 

[Bobbin]

Except it doesn't work that way. You still have to prove the concept of the car. The theories you present are very much still just that and controversial as well. Your idea is still a fringe theory and bombarding me with links in the hopes that one sticks isn't going to change that.

I am honestly so lost by this What is a car lol. No really! 'Tis but a man made label. So what exactly are we trying to prove?

Does not compute with me :/ Anyway good luck with that