It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hmm...
Originally posted by byhiniur
To get this thread back on track, am I correct that Darwin's view of evolution is now wrong and Dawkins revision has been proven right by this finding. For a fuller explanation of why I think this see my above posts.
[edit on 4/12/06 by byhiniur]
Originally posted by supercheetah
To put it another way, the analogy Dawkins : Darwin :: Einstein : Newton seems apropos.
He is a scientist. He's the same type of scientist as Jane Goodall--an ethologist (the study of animal behavior). A list of his work can be found here. What he isn't is an evolutionary biologist, which is probably what gets him into trouble with evolutionary biologists.
Originally posted by kallikak
Originally posted by supercheetah
To put it another way, the analogy Dawkins : Darwin :: Einstein : Newton seems apropos.
Dawkins isn't even a scientist, much less a theoretician... comparing Dawkins to Einstein is absurd. While there may be some validity to the idea that genes are the unit of evolution and selection... the view is entirely too simplistic.
But that's the point of Dawkin's simplifying and making things understandable to interested lay people for the most part. Most scientists don't take Dawkins as an authorative source on evolution. Gould, Lewontin, Shapiro, Foster, etc. All theoreticians and researchers whose ideas challenge Darwin's, but not Dawkins.
Originally posted by polomontana
I don't think this has anything to do with a selfish gene or gene survival. These genes get reproduced. What they are talking about is that 3 people can have different numbers of the same gene. I could have 4 copies, the next person 3 and the next person 2. The gene variation between human to human is a BOMBSHELL. Were not talking about gene reproduction but the copying of a gene from human to human.
This has implications for Quantum computing. This is a theory of mine that can be tested. Thermodynamics, information theory and chaos can all tie into this. I will start with an example, say you have a puzzle that has 2 pieces that's not in place. The puzzle is in an ordered state and there's a low information content that can be achieved so less energy input is needed when completing the puzzle. On the flip side, if the puzzle pieces are scattered all over the floor then it's in a less ordered state but the information that's available is much higher and it will take more energy imput to complete the puzzle. Say you go back 2000 years if my theory is correct there should be a greater gene variation between humans from that time period. That's because things like planes, cars and computers were not invented yet so they were in a less ordered state than we are but more information was present because the more chaos in a system means there's more information to be processed. This would show that are genes are actually behaving like a Quantum computer and constantly processing information. This would explain why there's a variation between each individual and this would also suggest that we are one. Many people in Spiritual circles have said we are one but we seem as though we are seperate. I think are genes are constantly computing. Also this is something to think about. Say we go back 2,000 years and there's a 30% variation between each human and now there's a 10% variation between each human. This would suggest that every thousand years we compute 10% of our information capacity. That would mean our species is 10,000 years old and we have 1,000 years before there's not any gene variation between humans. Maybe at this point we will transition from a type 0 to a type 1 civilization as theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku talks about or we will reach an Omega Point that Frank Tipler suggest and a universal computer that can simulate all of the information that has existed in our universe. This is just an example, if we were to verify that humans had a wider gene variation 2,000 years ago then there is today. Then we can calculate the rate that we process our information capacity and we can even calculate when there will not be any gene variation between us.
[edit on 24-11-2006 by polomontana]
[edit on 24-11-2006 by polomontana]
Originally posted by byhiniur
As I see it this is proof that Dawkins was correct to place the gene as the main bit of evolution... genes strive against each other, therefore it would be in their interest to replicate themselves many times in a strain of DNA in order to improve their chances of being carried on through reproduction.
What do people think about this?
Originally posted by supercheetah
Originally posted by bihyniur
Am I correct that Darwin's view of evolution is now wrong...
I don't think "wrong" is the right word. I think "refined" would be better.
Originally posted by supercheetah
[He is a scientist. He's the same type of scientist as Jane Goodall--an ethologist (the study of animal behavior). A list of his work can be found here. What he isn't is an evolutionary biologist, which is probably what gets him into trouble with evolutionary biologists.
That said, he has studied evolution, and published some papers on the topic. And, resorting to his lack of credentials in evolutionary biology doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.
That's nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to authority.
even though they were often staunch allies in defending science against pseudoscience--specifically Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by kallikak
A scientist isn't defined by the degrees they possess, they're defined by the research they do, and it's contribution to science in general. Sorry to break the news to you, but Dawkins hasn't done a lick of wet science in decades.
His position isn't even related to research science directly... he's a professor of science policy, as the reference you've linked clearly demonstrates. A professor of science policy is not a scientist. He might be if he bothered to pick up a pipette in three decades, but Dawkins is more busy using science as his personal bully pulpit.
Firstly, Dembski is a mathematician, which makes his background quite different from Dawkins, who would have actually had a formal education in biology as it relates to ethology/zoology. On top of that, he has also had the luxury of being published in science journals like Nature--not an easy feat, especially for Nature. Dembski's few publications are targeted at mathematicians and philosophers, not biologists, let alone other scientists.
And here it is: Somehow, that Dawkins uses science to push his personal philosophical beliefs is somehow acceptable to you because you like his opinion.
I got news for you, bud. But Dawkins is just as bad as Dembski, et al., he's just on the opposite end of the spectrum. In both instances, non-RESEARCH-scientists are making not only judgements about the implications of research, but take it a step further and use it to support their personal notion of philosophic reality.
Both are equally reprehensible; because Dawkins is 'on the side of science' doesn't make it okay for him to abuse it.
Originally posted by supercheetah
I'm sure glad that scientists, both theoretical and experimental, make judgements about the implications of research, and then use it to "support their personal notion of philosophic reality." They, of all people, know their particular fields the best and the implications of the applications of their fields. On top of that, they're still human, and that means they understand a little bit of the human condition. No longer are scientists sitting down and letting the world destroy itself.
Is it really abuse to use science to back a philosophical position?
People should do that more often. Creationists, including Dembski, don't even try.
Originally posted by supercheetah
You're right, he hasn't done much research lately, but just because he hasn't doesn't make all that education and experience just go away.
Besides, that's like saying theoretical physicists aren't scientists either. His writings on evolution are as scientific as Stephen Hawking's writings on physics, who also doesn't do a lick of experimental research.
Firstly, Dembski is a mathematician, which makes his background quite different from Dawkins, who would have actually had a formal education in biology as it relates to ethology/zoology. On top of that, he has also had the luxury of being published in science journals like Nature--not an easy feat, especially for Nature. Dembski's few publications are targeted at mathematicians and philosophers, not biologists, let alone other scientists.
Originally posted by kallikak
It absolutely is abuse. Science and the scientific method are for answering science questions, not philosophical ones. Philosophical questions, by their very nature, are not testable, and fall outside of the realm of science. It's absolutely abusing your scientific credentials when you use science to support subjective philsophical ideas.
that's what Creation Science and Intelligent Design do... that's their entire purpose to offer scientific support for one's philosophical ideas. That's what makes them so reprehensible, and is indeed what makes the ideas of Dawkins, Harris, etc. so reprehensible. They do the exact same thing as Dawkins... it's just that they're on the other team. Because they're on your side doesn't make it okay.
Originally posted by kallikak
Okay then, by your standard, Jonathan Wells, The Morrises, etc. are all scientists... after all you can't take their education and training them. It apparently doesn't matter that what they publish isn't really science, after all, they did get a Ph.D.
It's not like that at all... Theorhetical Physics is an entirely different field than biology. Indeed Stephen Hawking doesn't do any 'experimental' research. Let's all keep in mind that Stephen Hawking can't even speak, much less do bench science. Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented Stephen Hawking from delving quite deeply into the mathematical science of theorhetical physics. IOW, even if SH isn't doing 'bench science,' he is still making contributions by offering groundbreaking mathematics.
Dawkins ideas aren't groundbreaking, they're science journalism. IOW, he's a compiler, not a theorhetician.
Quite possible, but that wasn't the argument here.
Okay... so by your standard Dawkins is unqualified to evaluate molecular genetics evidence, physical chemistry, complex biochemical evidence etc. After all, he's a zoologist, and his publications and research were not focused on any of those topics.