Coffee! Neuroscience: Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 16, 2009

Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I found this chilling:

Abstract:
This paper questions criminal law’s strong presumption of free will. Part I assesses the ways in which environment, nurture, and society influence human action. Part II briefly surveys studies from the fields of genetics and neuroscience which call into question strong assumptions of free will and suggest explanations for propensities toward criminal activity. Part III discusses other “causes” of criminal activity including addiction, economic deprivation, gender, and culture. In light of Parts I through III, Part IV assesses criminal responsibility and the legitimacy of punishment. Part V considers the the possibility of determining propensity from criminal activity based on assessing causal factors and their effects on certain people. In this context, the concept of dangerous individuals and possible justifications for preventative detention of such individuals in order to protect society is assessed. The concluding section suggests that the law should take a broader view of factors that could have determinant effects on agents’ actions.

The part that bugs me is “possible justifications for preventative detention”.

That’s what always happens when free will is denied. Somehow or other, the idea gets started that we can detect in advance who will commit a crime. Then you needn’t do anything to get arrested and put away. Someone just needs to have a theory about you.

But no one can truly predict the future in any kind of detail.

What about the Fort Hood massacre, you ask? Well, according to a number of reports, that guy had been advertising his grievances for some months. You sure wouldn’t need a brain scan or materialist theories about free will to figure out that he wasn’t happy in the Army and should just have been discharged – which is what he wanted. You’d just need to listen to what he actually said.

Also just up at my neuroscience blog, The Mindful Hack:

Neuroskepticism: A breath of fresh air, and maybe more legal safety too

Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine?

Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought

Curiosity and the dead cat

Comments

Well Dr. McNeill since you find materialism “fatally logically flawed,”, to what philosophical basis do you now subscribe?bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Re: Truth in Science? Allen @78
Science isn’t about “truth”, it’s about observation, inference, and explanations that have not yet been shown to be contradicted by empirical evidence.
I'm having difficulty making sense of this, and can hardly believe that this is issuing from someone who is an educator. What does it mean to say that an observation, inference, or explanation has been contradicted by empirical evidence? If science is not about "truth" what does it matter whether it's "oberservations, inferences or explanations" have been "contradicted by empirical evidence"? Without propositions you cannot have a contradiction. You can only remove the question of truth from science if you remove propositions from science. Are you willing to do that? I'd love for someone to point our how I am mistaken.
That’s why science and scientific theories change over time: new discoveries force scientists to change their inferences and explanations to incorporate those discoveries.
Thank God they don't abandon theories because they have been shown to be FALSE. That would be, well, unscientific. Or would it.Mung_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Sorry, PaulN, I assumed you were my opponent (and sometime colleague), Dr. Paul Nelson, as you have generally exhibited the same courtesy and adherence to the "rules" of academic debate as Dr. Nelson.Allen_MacNeill_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san wrote:
"I don’t think Mr Macneill is making a scientific claim when he describes his beliefs."
Indeed, I am not. My statement that I am not a materialist and that I believe that there is a logical inconsistency between materialism and the data of science is a metaphysical assertion, and therefore not a scientific conclusion. I have yet to find anything in Nakashima-san's comments with which I disagree on scientific grounds.Allen_MacNeill_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#81) I must say I envy you for having had the privilege of listening to philosophers like G.E.M. Anscombe and Bernard Williams. Cambridge, eh? I knew it had to have been somewhere good. Anyway, I'd like to get back to your argument. You write:
The whole point of compatabilism is we do control our physical movements (at least the voluntary ones). We make choices based on our desires which control our movements. What more freedom could you ask for? The fact that those desires cause, and may determine, our choices is not a problem and indeed is obviously true. Would you prefer our choices not to be based on our desires?
(1) What more freedom could I ask for? That's easy: freedom from external control. Personally, I don't like the thought of being controlled by anyone or anything. And it matters not one whit whether the thing controlling me makes me do what I want to do, or whether it makes me do something I don't want to do. Control is control, and it's incompatible with freedom. Indeed, I would regard the former kind of control as even more insidious than the latter. If you know that something is making you perform some action that you don't want to do, at least you know that you're up against something malevolent, and you can at least hate it, even if you are powerless to fight it. But if something is controlling your very desires, so that you always act in accordance with your wishes, then you might go through your whole life without ever recognizing that you're a puppet on a string, created and swept along by a sequence of events that you had no power over. Apparently, this kind of control does not bother you. I must confess I am baffled. (2) You write, "We make choices based on our desires which control our movements. What more freedom could one ask for?" Very well, then; are chimpanzees free? And what about rats, for that matter? For their voluntary movements are also caused by their desires, on your account - and yet, we would not think of suing them. You could reply, I suppose, that humans are rational in a way that chimpanzees are not - in other words, an agent is free if and only if it acts for a reason and does what it wants. But it is hard to see why you would add this extra condition, if you believe that our rational deliberations are also determined. (3) Do you believe it is morally appropriate to blame human beings for their bad choices? Notice that I say blame, not punish. Punishment might be construed as a form of conditioning, along the lines of shock therapy, designed to extinguish a socially unacceptable form of behavior; but moral indignation, when directed at someone whose actions are ultimately completely controlled by outside forces (heredity, environment or what have you) is simply absurd. It makes no sense, any more than it would for J.K. Rowling to get mad at Draco Malfoy for playing a mean trick on Harry Potter. If he did that, it's because she made him do it. (4) Finally, I would not say that it is "obviously true" that our choices are determined by our desires. Consider the following oft-cited case, described in the Wikipedia article on Uttoxeter:
Perhaps the most famous event to have occurred in Uttoxeter is the penance of Samuel Johnson. Johnson's father ran a bookstall on Uttoxeter market, and young Samuel once refused to help out on the stall. When Johnson was older, he stood in the rain (without a hat) as a penance for his failure to assist his father. This event is commemorated with the Johnson Memorial, which stands in the Market Place, in the town centre and there is also an area of town called Johnson Road, which commemorates him.
Was Johnson's choice to do penance controlled by his desires? Using "desire" in its ordinary sense, I would say not. Of course, you could say that while Johnson had a desire not to get wet, it was over-ridden by a stronger desire to do penance by allowing himself to get wet. But if I were to ask you what makes the latter desire stronger, you would presumably reply: the fact that it over-rode the former desire. That is what I would call begging the question. (5) Right now I'm re-reading a book by Dr. Thomas Pink, entitled "Free Will: A Very Short Introduction" (OUP, 2004). On page 97, Pink highlights an important distinction between desires and decisions:
A decision is a motivation with an object. A decision is a decision to do something. But a decision is not an ordinary motivation. It is quite different to an ordinary desire. And that is because a decision's relation to its object is that of an action to its object. The decision is related to its object ... as to a goal that the decision is supposed to attain... Desire is an object-directed motivation too - a desire is always a desire for something to happen. But desire is not practical in nature. A desire is directed at its object merely as something desirable, not as a goal to be attained thereby. So the rationality of simply wanting an event to occur does not depend on the desire's being able to cause that event to occur. I can want England to win the cup - and want this quite sensibly - even though I am sure that what I want will have no effect on whether England actually wins. What I cannot sensibly do with this belief is decide that England will win the cup... We are no longer characterizing action as a kind of effect, but rather as a mode of exercising reason. What distinguished action is not a special kind of cause, but a special kind of rationality. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
I hope the foregoing quote gives you some food for thought.vjtorley_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Nak, I really should not have to explain this to you, but your philosophical basis directly effects your science. It is from you philosophical basis of materialism that all your "imaginary" and unsubstantiated postulations are arising from in the first place, thus since you are in fact operating from a "fatally logically flawed," position (McNeill) Why should I not demand that you substantiate your basis with a formal and empirical proof? Since that is in fact the root of your whole problem with your disconnect with reality? For you to pretend that your "philosophy does not matter", is absurd in the highest degree, for your philosophy is in fact what is driving you to repeated and comical conjectures of imagination that have no connection to reality whatsoever,,,though you insist that they are perfectly consistent conjectures because of your unquestioned commitment to materialism. You think it unfair I point this obvious flaw out to you, because you find any form of Theism unthinkable? Well that's tough Nak,,,it is really your personal issues that is the problem there for you, and has nothing to do with the truth of science. Once again I ask you to present just one example of an increase in molecular functional complexity that passes the "fitness test"! Just one example of which you should have countless thousands. but ALAS Nak WHAT DO YOU HAVE??? Nothing to show? Why is this nak? Why don't you find this extremely problematic and earnestly seek resolution to it? Instead of doing your damnedest to avoid it? Why Nak? Why?bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, i don't think Mr Macneill is making a scientific claim when he describes his beleifs. I've been trying to discuss science with you, as ID does claim to be science. Our previous encounter have made clear that discussing my personal history and beliefs with you in counter-productive. I know that you view our entire dialog as one long altar call. I'm sorry that it leads to moments such as this when you use this fundamental disconnect to stop talking about the subject at hand. A demand for agreement on such matters is inconsistent with your previous position and absurd as a debating stance. You must realize that tactics like this make your position seem even less tenable than all the constant quotemining and switching of argumentative horses in midstream. This is simple petulance.Nakashima_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Nak, the problem is that you refuse to concede that materialism is completely incoherent as Allen has: For example Nak, To quote this powerful remark from Allen, a remark that really surprised me in its honesty and clarity::
As for materialism, I am not a materialist and believe that purely materialistic arguments are fatally logically flawed, and would therefore not ever try to support them. On the contrary, I have argued strongly against them, both here and in other academic forums. I am neither a committed materialist nor do I believe that humans do not have free will.
Allen McNeill (I hope you don't mind if I file this one away Dr. McNeill) So Nak, do you agree with Allen's statement? If not, can you please provide your formal proof that materialism is true? If you don't then why should I even think for a moment you are truly serious in these questions of origins?bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Also for the record, I am not Paul Nelson, although I do agree with most of what he says. Just thought I'd clear that up so people won't be confused as to who I am, and also to remove the potential for someone to say "Hey, look what Paul Nelson said on this blog...," when it was really PaulN, someone who just happens to have the same first name and last initial.PaulN_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Shorter BA^77: I will ignore you when convenient. I'm sad you take this tack, Mr BA^77. Previously, my dogmatic materialism was a reason to engage me in conversation. Now I'll have to use those satellite mind control lasers to get Mr MacNeill to point out exactly what I did. Allen, this really won't hurt much...Nakashima_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Nak, the post was directed towards Allen who, with his stated refutation of dogmatic materialism, I would be willing to see how far his reasoning would work with secondary issues and definitions, but with you, as a dogmatic materialist, you must address the primary issue at hand, as must Allen eventually, and demonstrate a increase of functional complexity above the parent bacteria. i.e. you must establish a foundation for what you hold to be true (materialism) before you can properly address the ensuing matters!bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Thank you for the clarification on different phases of GE. I hadn't seen that before in discussions by a lot of people that referenced GE and Dr Sanford's book. The first phase of Genetic Entropy, any life-form will go through, holds all sub-speciation adaptations away from a parent species, which increase fitness/survivability to a new environment for the sub-species, will always come at a cost of the functional information that is present in the parent species genome. This is, for the vast majority of times, measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes. This is interesting to me for two reasons. First, it seems to concede that yes, speciation really does happen. While it is phrased as 'sub-species within kind' to avoid offending YEC sensibilities, what is the point of discussing the process at all unless reproductive isolation ensues, which is the basis for most biological species concepts. Second, it is an odd conflation of 'functional information', which might be considered a property or measure on an individual genome, and 'genetic diversity', which is a property or measure on a population as a whole. In any case, it is all slightly at odds with a section later in your message: The first effect to be noticed, for the Genetic Entropy principle, is the loss of morphological variability of individual sub-species of a kind. If you had said, "the loss of morphological variation" I would say that is a minor difference from "loss of genetic diversity"; it locates all diversity as morphological variation, not including biochemical variation, which we know can be important without changing the look of an animal. However, loss of variability is something else. That is a claim that having just varied sucessfully, the mechanisms that produce variation have for some reason stopped working. That should be clearly testable.Nakashima_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

correction: for clarity this change has been made in my notes: "The first effect to be obviously noticed, for the Genetic Entropy principle, is the loss of potential for morphological variability of individual sub-species of a kind. This loss of potential for morphological variability,,,,"bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Allen states: "Virtually all of the arguments presented here in support of GE are based on the accumulation of deleterious mutations in haploid organisms or bacteria.,,," Excuse me Allen, I'm not arguing for that "secondary" phase of Genetic Entropy (GE),,, yet,, let me lay out a broad outline of the phases of GE for you. I find the principle of Genetic Entropy to be the true principle for all biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided Darwinian evolution. As well, unlike Darwinian evolution which can claim no primary principles in science to rest its foundation on, Genetic Entropy can rest its foundation in science directly on the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and on the Law of Conservation Of Information(LCI) (Marks Dembski, Abel; Null Hypothesis). The first phase of Genetic Entropy, any life-form will go through, holds all sub-speciation adaptations away from a parent species, which increase fitness/survivability to a new environment for the sub-species, will always come at a cost of the functional information that is present in the parent species genome. This is, for the vast majority of times, measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes. This phase of Genetic Entropy is verified, in one line of evidence, by the fact all population genetics' studies show a consistent loss of genetic diversity from a parent species for all sub-species that have adapted away (Maciej Giertych). This fact is also well testified to by plant breeders and animal breeders who know there are strict limits to the amount of variability you can expect when breeding for any particular genetic trait. The second line of evidence, this primary phase of the principle of Genetic Entropy is being rigorously obeyed, is found in the fact the "Fitness Test" against a parent species of bacteria has never been violated by any sub-species of a parent bacteria. For a broad outline of the "Fitness test", required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp This "fitness test" fairly conclusively demonstrates "optimal information" was originally encoded within a "parent" bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any "teleological" methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy. It seems readily apparent that to conclusively demonstrate God has moved within nature, in a teleological manner, to provide the sub-species bacteria with additional functional information over the "optimal" genome of its parent species, the "fitness test" must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits) (Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the limit found by Behe). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish materialistic processes did not generate the functional information (Fits), and to rigorously establish teleological, within nature, processes were indeed involved in the increase of Functional Complexity of the beneficially adapted sub-species. The second and final phase of Genetic Entropy, outlined by John Sanford in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, is when "slightly detrimental" mutations, which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a genome, slowly build up in a species/kind over long periods of time and lead to Genetic Meltdown. The first effect to be noticed, for the Genetic Entropy principle, is the loss of morphological variability of individual sub-species of a kind. This loss of morphological variability first takes place for the extended lineages of sub-species within a kind, and increases with time, and then gradually works in to the more ancient lineages of the kind, as the "mutational load" slowly builds up over time (A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Webster). The final effect/phase of Genetic Entropy is when the entire spectrum of the species of a kind slowly start to succumb to "Genetic Meltdown", and to go extinct in the fossil record. The occurs because the mutational load, of the slowly accumulating "slightly detrimental mutations" in the genomes, becomes too great for each individual species of the kind to bear. From repeated radiations from ancient lineages in the fossil record, and from current adaptive radiation studies which show strong favor for ancient lineages radiating, the ancient lineages of a kind appear to have the most "robust genomes" and are thus most resistant to "Genetic Meltdown". All this consistent evidence makes perfect sense from the Genetic Entropy standpoint, in that Genetic Entropy holds God created each parent kind with a "optimal genome" for all future sub-speciation events. My overwhelming intuition, from all the evidence I've seen so far, and from Theology, is this; Once God creates a parent kind, the parent kind is encoded with "optimal information" for the specific purpose to which God has created the kind to exist, and God has chosen, in His infinite wisdom, to strictly limit the extent to which He will act within nature to "evolve" the sub-species of the parent kind to greater heights of functional complexity. Thus the Biblically compatible principle of Genetic Entropy is found to be in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics and with the strict limit found for "nature" ever generating any meaningful amount of functional information on its own (LCI: Dembski - Marks). It should be clearly pointed out that we know, for 100% certainty, that Intelligence can generate functional information i.e. irreducible complexity. We generate a large amount of functional information, which is well beyond the reach of the random processes of the universe, every time we write a single page of a letter (+700 Fits average). The true question we should be asking is this, "Can totally natural processes ever generate functional information?", especially since totally natural processes have never been observed generating functional information from scratch (Durston).bornagain77_{November 18, 2009
November
11
Nov
18
18
2009
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Graham,
What do we have to do (besides grovel) to please you ?
Just be civil. The posts you see are civil, but you don't see all posts.Clive Hayden_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

To Clive Hayden: If we arent in possesion of all the facts, then perhaps you could explain why you have Allen suspended in moderation ? He sounds pretty civil to me and obviously puts some effort into his posts. What do we have to do (besides grovel) to please you ?Graham1_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

#53 Vjtorley I will look at the other stuff later but I must pick up on the Anscombe lecture - because I was there! (I studied philosophy at Cambridge from 1969-72 - shows you how old I am). To be honest I can't remember much about the lecture, but I do remember that Bernard Williams did not agree. If you look at your quote it really sidesteps the issue of compatabilism. My actions are mostly physical movements; if these physical movements are physically predetermined by processes which I do not control, then my freedom is perfectly illusory. The whole point of compatabilism is we do control our physical movements (at least the voluntary ones). We make choices based on our desires which control our movements. What more freedom could you ask for? The fact that those desires cause, and may determine, our choices is not a problem and indeed is obviously true. Would you prefer our choices not to be based on our desires?Mark Frank_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

#77 Troutmac It’s really quite entertaining to watch committed materialists who deny free will, but are compelled to submit complaints to the moderators because their replies were held up for hours… as though the moderators had a choice. I can't speak for all materialists but a fair number of us are compatablists and find materialism and indeed determinism compatible with free will.Mark Frank_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Allen, I have people moderated that I agree with. Please, please, don't assume you know everything that I do, and don't assume you know why I do or don't do it. Talk about motive mongering. Your outlandish assumptions really get old. I don't even want to have to address them most of the time.Clive Hayden_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Re TRoutMac in comment #76:
"...why try to persuade IDers of the truth of Darwinism and materialism?"
I neither believe that Darwinism is "true", nor have I ever attempted to persuade IDers of the "truth of materialism". Science isn't about "truth", it's about observation, inference, and explanations that have not yet been shown to be contradicted by empirical evidence. That's why science and scientific theories change over time: new discoveries force scientists to change their inferences and explanations to incorporate those discoveries. As for materialism, I am not a materialist and believe that purely materialistic arguments are fatally logically flawed, and would therefore not ever try to support them. On the contrary, I have argued strongly against them, both here and in other academic forums. I am neither a committed materialist nor do I believe that humans do not have free will. I do, however, believe that debates such as these can be conducted in a civil and courteous manner, and have at all times tried to conduct myself as such. I would not attack your person if I disagreed with your argument. Why do you think it's okay to attack me, rather than my arguments? Do you think that doing so somehow supports your position? If so, you are sadly mistaken. More broadly, would those who disagree with my arguments and conclusions please point out where in this thread (or any thread at this website) I have attacked any ID supporter's person, rather than their arguments? I have, of course, attacked those of their ideas that I believe are based on faulty information or faulty inferences from reliable information. I have also agreed with several points that they have made and conceded that some of their arguments have merit and have said so publicly. At the same time, I have rigorously defended what I perceive to be the most warranted positions, based on my understanding of the available empirical data. I will never apologize for doing so, nor would I expect anyone who disagreed with me to do so. What I do expect is some sense of academic honor. Have I attacked, insulted, or ridiculed anyone here the way several ID proponents here routinely have done (to the point recently of drawing a warning from a moderator)? Have I ridiculed anyone here by addressing them by "cute" or insulting nicknames, rather than the names under which they have chosen to post their comments, as certain others have done repeatedly? Academic debates such as this one are carried by rational arguments grounded in freely available evidence. Those who use ad hominem arguments, insults, ridicule, and appeals to irrational prejudice may get a cheap thrill out of doing so, but people who value fairness and rational inquiry will judge for themselves who has won or lost by using such tactics. How say you, Paul Nelson? Salvador Cordova? vjtorley? Mung? Nakashima-san? Is the moderation policy here scrupulously fair, or is it sometimes used to quash rational debate and spirited (but respectful) disagreement? And you, Clive? If you think my arguments in this comment are so outrageous as to brook no quarter, please "disappear" them and ban me. Indeed, I insist that you do so, and request that, out of simple courtesy, you send me an email explaining why (you can find my email by downloading my curriculum vitae at my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com ). But before you do, please ask yourself why you apparently moderate commentators with whom you disagree, but who wish to be treated fairly and present rational arguments, while doing nothing to moderate commentators with whom you agree, but whose arguments are accompanied by ad hominem slurs, insults, and ridicule. If you were a teacher for a class that engaged in discussions such as these, would you allow people to address their opponents using insulting nicknames, attack their motives, insinuate that they lack morals or intelligence, ascribe beliefs and motivations to them that they themselves have either not divulged or have openly disavowed, and yet assert that this is some approximation of fairness?Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

It's really quite entertaining to watch committed materialists who deny free will, but are compelled to submit complaints to the moderators because their replies were held up for hours… as though the moderators had a choice. The moderators are, after all, just machines. They can't help it… they are at the mercy of their molecules. And why try to persuade IDers of the truth of Darwinism and materialism? Supporters of ID don't have a choice in the matter. (on the materialist's view) I can't help but believe in I.D., my molecules determine it. There's no such thing as free will, remember? Romans 1:22TRoutMac_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Nakashima @63
Welcome to the world of TE and Alfred Russel Wallace.
Sorry, but any reading of Alfred Wallace clearly removes him from the TE "camp" and places him square on the side of ID. 1. Natural selection is insufficient. 2. Nature is directed. TE affirms the direct opposite of Wallace.Mung_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

@20 I just don't agree with your assessment of what is "the bottom". The ranking of scientific literacy is ranked by the Darwinists. It's another one of their circular arguments. (ie Darwinism is science, so no Darwinism means your science literacy is low) That reminds me, speaking of Turkey, I just read this the other day. I didn't realize D.I. offered their help in this matter. Great job guys. (goes to show that good science can move beyond religious differences) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html?hpid=topnewsFross_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

This entire discussion of "genetic entropy" took place almost three quarters of a century ago, in response to Müller's presentation of the phenomenon now commonly referred to as "Müller's Ratchet". John Sanford's GE model is explicitly modeled on Müller's Ratchet, but does not include the very phenomenon that Müller proposed as the solution to his dilemma: sexual reproduction via diploidy, meiosis, and gamete/zygote fertilization. Müller pointed out that being diploid and exchanging genetic material would completely negate the negative effects of the accumulation of deleterious mutations, both by compensating for such mutations via their homologs and by eventually weeding them out by exposing them to selection following recombination. This is very old stuff, folks. Once again, ID supporters are re-fighting the ancient battles that eventually culminated in the formulation of the "modern evolutionary synthesis", while most evolutionary biologists have moved on during the subsequent half a century.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

In comment #69, Paul Nelson implied that the fossil record contains evidence that some kind of "complexifying force" has produced the variety of functional adaptations visible in that record. However, as many paleontologists have pointed out, much of the variation seen in the fossil record is non-functional (or, at best, only partially functional). Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin pointed this out in their famous essay on spandrels, and Gould amplified on this point in his later paper with Elizabeth Vrba on exaptations. Indeed, the so-called Cambrian explosion is a classical example of this very phenomenon: a burst of complexity (corresponding to the relatively rapid adaptive radiation of arthropods following the evolution of bilateral metamerism), characterized by a multiplicity of forms, most of which eventually went extinct, thereby revealing their underlying non-functionality.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Please note that I personally do not necessarily either endorse nor rule out either Kaufman's or Conway Morris' hypothesis for the existence and operation of a "complexifying" force in nature. However, I would be remiss in pointing out that at least one Nobel Prize (to Ilya Prigogine in 1977) has been awarded for empirical research into precisely this kind of "complexifying" natural force.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Mung asked:
"Why does the “natural complexifying force” produce functional things, rather than just complex but non-functional things?
According to standard evolutionary theory, if such a force exists (as Kaufman and Conway Morris assert it does) it would produce both. To be precise, such a force could produce functional, non-functional, and partially functional complex objects/processes, and natural selection would eliminate the former and preserve the latter. Indeed, one could refer to this phenomenon as "Kaufman's Ratchet", as each increase in complexity preserved by natural selection would lay the groundwork for a subsequent increase in complexity as the "engine of complexity" produces yet more functional, non-functional, and partially functional variations on the new theme.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

In comment #67, Paul Nelson wrote:
"...redundancy does indeed have its benefits, even if not immediately seen at the surface level."
This has been the substance of several of my comments: the double set of homologous chromosomes in diploid eukaryotes provides absolutely massive redundancy for every allele in the genome (except for those in X and y chromosomes of male mammals and those carried in mitochondria and chloroplasts). Because it is extremely unlikely that the same mutation will spontaneously occur at exactly the same locus in both sets of chromosomes, it is correspondingly extremely likely that the effects of such mutations (be they deleterious, neutral, or beneficial) will be compensated for (or even reinforced) by the corresponding allele in the homologous chromosome. Indeed, if the mutation is recessive (which almost all of them are, for reasons not directly related to Sanford's GE model), then almost all new mutations will be "invisible" and will accumulate until "purged" from the collective genome of the population during an inbreeding event.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Also Mung @62,
Why does the “natural complexifying force” produce functional things, rather than just complex but non-functional things?
Very good point. Especially if the question is applied to the fossil record.PaulN_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Greetings, Paul: Virtually all of the arguments presented here in support of GE are based on the accumulation of deleterious mutations in haploid organisms or bacteria. My comments on Sal Cordova's video simulation of GE apply equally here: regardless of whether they are deleterious, neutral, or advantageous, any mutation originates in a chromosome of a diploid eukaryote can be either recessive or dominant (or partially dominant, with incomplete penetrance). John Sanford's model (i.e. "Gregor's Bookkeeper") assumes haploidy and complete penetrance (i.e. 100% expression) of the deleterious mutations arising in the single set of chromosomes (or DNA molecule, in the case of bacteria). It is therefore virtually completely useless in predicting the effects of mutations (regardless of effect) in diploid eukaryotes. Furthermore, his model completely neglects such well-recognized phenomena as "purging" of deleterious recessive alleles as the result of inbreeding in small populations, "selective sweep" effects in any size population, and "founder-flush" effects. I can post links to empirical studies for all of these (and have done so: see https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/nachmans-paradox-defeats-darwinism-and-dawkins-weasel/#comment-339951 and http://telicthoughts.com/mutations-fitness-and-more/#comments )Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply