[ Long ] A Philosophy of Science v. Pseudo-Science

Post Reply New Topic

Oldavid,

Oh, a con job you say? What do you mean by that?

A confidence trick. A misrepresentation of the facts designed to convey a false impression.

The very first layer of confinement I'd recommend:

science as a method vs. pseudo-science as a method

science as a culture vs. pseudo-science as a culture

To really hit this topic properly you'd need to stick to the first and strain the second entirely out. On the first issue things of substance could be said, you could bridge a critique of both sides of the second line strictly from the point of reference of the first but any reflex to read science as a method and science as a culture as synonymous things yields results that makes enough of a mockery of both the terms 'science' and 'pseudoscience' that it'll end up being a bunch of political/ideological jargon (either in the pop-atheist or pop-metaphysicist direction) rather than a meaningful dissection. The farther you can stay away from pop-anything the better.

What's the catch, then?

Also, a misrepresentation of beliefs as facts, selected specifically to convey a desired conclusion that is at odds with reality - as in "Thousands of people believe that vaccines cause autism, so it must be true".

Oh really?

Evolution is descent with modification. It is well known that children do not look exactly like their parents.Ta da. Descent with modification happens.

Experiments have also shown that DNA (experimentally shown to be the hereditary molecule) undergoes mutation, and that mutations can change phenotypes. We know that species change according to natural selection. We know that species under continual selection pressure eventually undergo speciesation and cannot breed with each other any more. We know that all life shares a common origin, and that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees.

At this point I'm paralysed by choice. Are there any specific claims you would like me to provide evidence for?

Just one: That Oldavid has any secondary education in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Maths.

I put the word "evolution" above in parentheses for a very good reason. If you take the word in its most general and etymological sense it simply means "gradual change". But, as I've clearly said elsewhere, it occurs only and always in the direction of entropy. Every mutation ever observed is the result of a gene being lost or damaged... never ever as a result of the creation of a new gene.

As a long time stock breeder, and coming from a long line of stock breeders, I am very well aware of the practical and theoretical aspects and limitations of selecting for "desirable" traits in animals being selected for their suitability for some human convenience. The only option a breeder has is to attempt to eliminate "undesirable" characteristics from the gene pool which, if one is very lucky, the elimination of one characteristic might allow the expression of another latent, or hidden, characteristic that was lurking hidden in the huge amount of "junk DNA" in every living organism.

You needn't be "paralysed by choice"... you may choose any "specific claim" that you think will demonstrate any aspect of Darwinian style anti-entropy "evolution". I'll wager that you can't come up with even one that I don't know is soundly refuted by observation and experiment. I am very familiar with all the media hype and pseudo-science fed to school children... been there, done that.

Walrus, just a quick note for clarity.
When David says that there are several threads where evolution has been exposed as a lie, he is basically self referencing.

Mmmm. Fair enough, I suppose. If there are any others around here who have bothered to dig a bit deeper than the mind-rotting media hype they seem to be very frightened and shy... as in not being prepared to expose themselves to the opprobrium one inevitably gets by not sycophantically running after the bellicose purveyors of fashionable fads.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835




just sayin'

In a closed system. It's perfectly possible for entropy to decrease if the system isn't closed.


Not true. And moreover, irrelevant. There's

Seher et al. found a chromosomal inversion caused the re-appearance of rotating sex combs in Drosophila spp.

Domes et al. found that partheneogenic mites have re-evolved sexual reproduction as a result of DNA mutations reactivating pseudogenes.

That isn't how it works. Perhaps you could give a specific example I have overlooked.

If you want to select for milk yield in cows, only let cows breed if they yield a lot of milk, and only let bulls breed if their mothers did. You'll see an increase in milk yield. That shows the power of selection.

There's no relationship between "eliminating an undesirable trait" and the re-activation of pseudo-genes. However, re-activating pseudo-genes is itself an increase in entropy...

I must admit, I find it very difficult to believe your claims. It is impossible to be a successful selective breeder without an understanding of evolution. Either you are a liar, or you haven't realised that you actually do believe in evolution.


Well, aside from those I've already cited (pseudo-genes re-activating, Seher et al., Domes et al.)

Lynch and Wagner (2010) found boid snakes have re-evolved oviparity despite having lost their egg tooth. The time lag is too long for this to be the re-activation of a pseudo-gene (Marshall et al., 1994)

Modiano et al (2001) found a haemoglobin mutation that reduces susceptibility to malaria, with very little anaemia.

Tetrachromacy has been reported.

Please feel free to refute any of these things, and indeed, more generally the idea that species change over time, that selection is the major driver of evolution, or that all life shares a common ancestor.

References:
Boyden, L.M., Mao, J., Belsky, J., Mitzner, L., Farhi, A., Mitnick, M.A., Wu, D., Insogna, K., Lifton, R.P. (2002) High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine. 346(1), 1513-1521

Domes, K., Norton, R.A., Maraun, M., and Scheu, S. (2007) Reevolution of sexuality breaks Dollo’s law. PNAS. 104(17), 7139–7144.

Lynch, V.J., and Wagner, G.P. (2009) Did egg-laying boas break Dollo’s law? Phylogenetic evidence for reversal to oviparity in sand boas (Eryx: Boidae). Evolution. 64(1), 207–216.

Marshall, C.R., Raff, E.C., and Raff, R.A. (1994) Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences USA. 91(1), 12283-12287.

Modiano, D., and too many people to list. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature 414(1), 305-308.

Seher, T.D., Ng, C.S., Signor, S.A., Podlaha, O., Barmina, O., and Kopp, A. (2012) Genetic Basis of a Violation of Dollo’s Law: Re-Evolution of Rotating Sex Combs in Drosophila bipectinata. Genetics. 192(1), 1465-1475.

More of the old "entropy doesn't apply in an "open system"" gimmick. I'll address that one again when I have more time.

So "junk DNA" has become "pseudogenes" for the convenience of the ideological sales team... just like science has become empiricism. You guys have more tangles than a pot of spaghetti.

No, "junk DNA" is a layman's term which includes many things other than pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are a specific feature of the "junk DNA", they're genes which have become inoperative.

If entropy was a hard and fast rule, life would be impossible and many chemical reactions wouldn't happen.

Well, almost. That would be the case if everything was purely physics and chemistry as Materialism gratuitously claims.

Stick around until I have time to explain entropy realistically. Materialism, Empiricism must ignore and contradict many, if not most, readily demonstrable Natural Laws... most obviously and directly entropy.

Entropy is a real as rain. The entropy of any closed thermodynamic system increases over time. This his been established by experiment gazillions of times. Mathematically the number of microstates over which a macrostate is distributed increases, i.e. the energy of the system diffuses of an increasing array of microstates. This occurs with overwhelming probability.

So omelettes will never jump out of the pan back into their eggshells. Wood ashes will never unburn and become unburned wood. Cool water will never boil unless additional heat is applied and so on.

Entropy is real. And one of the consequences is that our deaths are inevitable. This basic fact of existence seems to upset a lot of people.