Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolutionary psychologist’s Sunday sermon: Blame evolution for your lack of patience and charity

arroba Email

In an opinion article in July’s issue of Reader’s Digest Dr Mann, a senior lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire’s school of psychology,
wrote that anger was once key to our survival but has now become targeted at trivial annoyances. Humans evolved to become angry in certain situations because the emotion motivates us to want things. For example, hunger makes us angry by raising our serotonin levels, prompting us to look for food. Anger also played an important role in helping early humans live together in social groups, by warning individuals when their behaviour was upsetting others.

Because anger is still “hard-wired” into our brain without a real purpose it can “misfire,” leading us to rage about inconsequential events.

This isn’t just evo psych nonsense, it’s destructive evo psych nonsense.

There is no reason to doubt that, even at the dawn of humanity, the “adult toddlers” among us raged about trivial things.

Alternative Sunday sermon from a non-Darwinist source: Grow up. Before something really stupid happens.

Mr. Fox claims
The Marks paper seems not to address reality, so, no, it does not seem much of an argument against evolutionary theory
Do you not know that Multiple Overlapping Codes have now been found in genomes Mr. Fox or are you, once again, being purposely misleading?? If your ignorance, rather than your usual lack of honesty, is the reason why the 'Marks paper seems not to address reality' for you then let me be the first to enlighten you on this fascinating discovery by ENCODE in Sept. 2012: ,,,First the claim of the Marks paper is that:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
and confirming evidence from the Sept. 2012 ENCODE study is here:
Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.,,, Isoform expression by a gene does not follow a minimalistic expression strategy, resulting in a tendency for genes to express many isoforms simultaneously, with a plateau at about 10–12 expressed isoforms per gene per cell line. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25 (10-12 average). http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8
Moreover Mr. Fox, that severe compression of information of multiple overlapping codes is at the bottom level of the information hierarchy in a genome:
The Multi-dimensional Genome--impossible for Darwinism to account for-- by Dr Robert Carter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/
supplemental notes:
The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Mammalian overlapping genes: the comparative perspective. - 2004 Excerpt: it is rather surprising that a large number of genes overlap in the mammalian genomes. Thousands of overlapping genes were recently identified in the human and mouse genomes. However, the origin and evolution of overlapping genes are still unknown. We identified 1316 pairs of overlapping genes in humans and mice and studied their evolutionary patterns. It appears that these genes do not demonstrate greater than usual conservation. Studies of the gene structure and overlap pattern showed that only a small fraction of analyzed genes preserved exactly the same pattern in both organisms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762064 Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome: "There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005 'It's becoming extremely problematic to explain how the genome could arise and how these multiple levels of overlapping information could arise, since our best computer programmers can't even conceive of overlapping codes. The genome dwarfs all of the computer information technology that man has developed. So I think that it is very problematic to imagine how you can achieve that through random changes in the code.,,, and there is no Junk DNA in these codes. More and More the genome looks likes a super-super set of programs.,, More and more it looks like top down design and not just bottom up chance discovery of making complex systems.' - Dr. John Sanford - The Mystery Of The Genome
and to put this in proper context Mr. Fox, Darwinists have yet to demonstrate the origination of a single gene or protein by neo-Darwinian processes, much less genes expressing severe overlapping codes for different proteins:
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
verse and music:
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Live - I Alone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNrQOUtXYOo
Don’t you think this is a more rigid falsification criteria Mr. Fox? If not, why in blue blazes not?
The Marks paper seems not to address reality, so, no, it does not seem much of an argument against evolutionary theory. Rabbits in the Cambrian would be a much more difficult problem for "evolutionists" to explain away. Alan Fox
Ailments resulting from anger and rage include respiratory troubles, increased blood pressure, liver disorders, and ill effects on the pancreas. Physicians also list anger and rage as emotions that aggravate, or even cause, such illnesses as ulcers, hives, asthma, skin diseases, and digestive problems. Concerning a calm heart versus one given to anger, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology states: “Current findings suggest a harmful association between anger and hostility and CHD [coronary heart disease].” Hence, the Journal notes: “Successful prevention and treatment of CHD might involve . . . not only conventional physical and pharmacological therapies, but also psychological management focusing on anger and hostility.” Simply put, a calm heart fosters good health, just as the Bible says. Barb
Mr. Fox you claim that:
“Rabbits in the Cambrian” or any other anomaly contra the observed nested hierarchy would challenge evolutionary theory. And I would be far from the first to point that out.
i.e. I take that to mean that you accept that sufficient divergence from the expected gradual transitions postulated by Darwinism in the fossil record would be enough to falsify Darwinism, and indeed Darwin himself agreed with you in that respect:
Darwin's Dilemma - The Cambrian Explosion - In Darwin's Own Words Excerpt: Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. [emphasis added] —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381. http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?31808-Darwin-s-Dilemma-The-Cambrian-Explosion
If you have not heard of it yet Mr. Fox, might I suggest a book that was just recently released, 'Darwin's Doubt' by Dr. Stephen Meyer, which, by your own criteria you submit to, holds that Darwin is falsified:
Paleontologist Mark McMenamin on Darwin's Doubt David Klinghoffer June 17, 2013 Quote: It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin's dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and evolutionary biology. Stephen Meyer points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of Cambrian animal phyla. - Paleontologist Mark McMenamin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/paleontologist_073361.html
Supplemental notes: Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from the fossil record;
"What Would Disprove Evolution?" - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Fossils are found in the "wrong place" all the time (either too early, or too late). Paleontological theory, however, allows for such devices as "ghost lineages" to repair the damage; see ENV's coverage here and here. (links on the site) Again, discordance between molecular and anatomical phylogenies is commonplace in systematics; see here.(link on the site) But we expect Coyne is able to handle these anomalies via his shock-absorbing adjective "complete," which allows an indefinitely large range of possibilities, short of "complete" discordance (whatever that means). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_would_disp061891.html Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html
Not to doubt your sincerity in all this Mr. Fox (well actually I do doubt your sincerity very much) but anyways, since that criteria is far from a the type of rigid criteria that I'm normally use to seeing in science, could you perhaps give me a more concrete criteria that would falsify Darwinism?? You know something along the lines of perhaps finding multiple overlapping programming codes in the genome stacked on top of one another?
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Don't you think this is a more rigid falsification criteria Mr. Fox? If not, why in blue blazes not? bornagain77
Alan Fox:
Rabbits in the Cambrian” or any other anomoly contra the observed nested heirarchy would challenge evolutionary theory.
Rabbits in the cambrian is not a valid scientific research project. And gradual evolution wouldn't expect the observed nested hierarchy. Gradual evolution expects a smooth blending of traits and that is contra a nested hierarchy. Joe
Yes, Alan, you are wrong again. :razz: Joe
So wrong again, Joe! :) Alan Fox
...perhaps you would care to be the first Darwinist to spell out the exact falsification criteria for unguided evolution?
Mr Cunningham "Rabbits in the Cambrian" or any other anomoly contra the observed nested heirarchy would challenge evolutionary theory. And I would be far from the first to point that out. Alan Fox
Read "What Evolution Is"- for example page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population
On the role of chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.
And what he says is all it takes is to be "good enough" in order to survive and reproduce. It's all in the book, Alan. Read it. I did. Joe
According to Ernst Mayr, the variation is happenstance and selection is nothing more than the elimination of the “not good enough to survive”.
I don't doubt Joe's "paraphrasing" is utterly bogus but... Let's have the cite, Joe. Where does Ernst Mayr talk of "happenstance" and "not good enough"? Alan Fox
Mr. Fox, if you truly do believe as such, perhaps you would care to be the first Darwinist to spell out the exact falsification criteria for unguided evolution?,, As far as I can tell, no matter what the evidence indicates, evolutionists know for a fact that it somehow evolved even though they have no examples of it happening:
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. Evolution explains everything. - William J Murray "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)
Barry, evolutionary theory only seeks to explain the diversity of life found on Earth by a process of selection and variation.
Not quite. According to Ernst Mayr, the variation is happenstance and selection is nothing more than the elimination of the "not good enough to survive". IOW Alan is overstating the power of the process. :razz: Joe
...we see that evolution can explain everything. Problem is, it can explain the opposite of everything with equal alacrity.
Barry, evolutionary theory only seeks to explain the diversity of life found on Earth by a process of selection and variation. You overstate the power of the theory. Perhaps that is why you fall into the same trap with "Intelligent Design". Alan Fox
Hmm, one wonders from whence the good Dr. Mann believes the human ability to be patient, sweet and forgiving came. I would be willing to bet everything I own that he would say those traits were “hard wired” into our brain by evolutionary processes. (What else could he say?) Once again, we see that evolution can explain everything. Problem is, it can explain the opposite of everything with equal alacrity. A facile “explanation” that accounts for everything and the opposite of everything at the same time is glaringly, stunningly worthless. Dr. Mann is deeply stupid. Barry Arrington

Leave a Reply