Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: grey_whiskers
OK, there actually are now two questions to answer, (a) your logical deductions and (b) the inquiries you posted. I'll start with (a), then try to find a pheasant for tonight's dinner in this town, and come back to (b) this afternoon.

Let's look at the problem presented. Per definitionem, you are looking at two single-element state matrices, i.e. we can P:={asexual} and Q:={sexual}. Also (per definitionem quaestionis) P=!Q and Q=!P. Thus, in this binary case, indeed !(!Q)=Q and !(!P)=P.

Second, P-->Q is incomplete as you need to include a transition operator. (Call it what you want, the incentive, the driving force, the slope, the gradient). Let's borrow the notation from the guys over at physics and define the transition as <P|u|Q>.

You are postulating that <P|0|Q>, i.e. both states exist because some imaginary being decided that (for no apparent reason) it would be a good thing to have the same specie occur in both states.

Conversely, evolution postulates <P|u|Q> while the inverse <Q|u|P> is not true as Q apparently is a desirable state and u is a "gradient".

I have two observable states P and Q, and I have a "gradient" u that unidirectionally transitions P into Q.

Thus, Dan's claim that This is the fallacy of 'begging the question' for assuming that what exists has 'evolved' and can be organized into 'transitional stages' is non-sensical. It forces u=0 without giving a justification. In layman's terms, Dan is saying "any exploration into u by observing P, Q is moot because it is based on the assumption that u<>0 but I demand u=0 a priori". In other words, "don't show me proofs of Evolution because by doing so you are postulating that Evolution is true".

But so that this is not a unidirectional debate, what I would like to ask is this: "Show me that u MUST be 0". I.e., in our particular case, show me why P and Q NEED to coexist without a transition between the two.
338 posted on 12/31/2011 11:22:40 AM PST by drtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: drtom
I think you're talking past (not over) me.

My wife is pestering me to go shopping, so I'll mull over how to recast my *actual* question, so you don't conflate a re-casting and a mixing of my statements with Dan's, with an answer to my question.

Enjoy your pheasant...and in the meantime, my doctorate is in molecular physics, so I appreciate the bra-ket notation. :-)

Cheers!

340 posted on 12/31/2011 12:02:12 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies ]

To: drtom; grey_whiskers

>> what I would like to ask is this:
“Show me that u MUST be 0”. I.e., in our particular case, show me why P and Q NEED to coexist without a transition between the two. <<

.
Since no case has ever been found where ‘P’ became ‘Q’ (or anything other than P) We can rest in the fact that ‘P’ is P and ‘Q’ is Q and not waste our short and precious time here searching for improbable ‘gradients.’ Leave the Sci-Fi for amusement only, and retain your remaining shred of credibility by not asserting that it is science.

.


353 posted on 12/31/2011 2:11:06 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies ]

To: drtom; GourmetDan
OK, there actually are now two questions to answer, (a) your logical deductions and (b) the inquiries you posted. I'll start with (a), then try to find a pheasant for tonight's dinner in this town, and come back to (b) this afternoon.

To avoid confusion -- for as you can see, this thread has a LOT of people talking past one another, please cut-and-paste what you call "(a) my logical deductions" and "(b) the inquiries you posted".

I don't recall seeing your name on FR before, so if you are not familiar with using cut-and-paste to embed blocks of text in italics, let me know. I'm sorry if that appears condescending, but I'd rather that any subthread starting here show clearly which speaker said what on which post: it can get *very* confusing, *very* quickly.

Let's look at the problem presented. Per definitionem, you are looking at two single-element state matrices, i.e. we can P:={asexual} and Q:={sexual}. Also (per definitionem quaestionis) P=!Q and Q=!P. Thus, in this binary case, indeed !(!Q)=Q and !(!P)=P.

At first glance, this appears to be mixing of my post and (I think) Gourmet Dan's post.

As far as I could tell, Dan's use of P and Q was as an aid to characterizing a certain type of logical fallacy ; my reply involving

^Q-->^P

and

^(^Q) --> ^ (^P)

was my own restating of Dan's assertion.

I regarded this as separate of any consideration of transitions from asexual to sexual reproduction; and intended it to be so.

All on the same page so far?

If so, let's *begin* to respond to your post.

Let's look at the problem presented. Per definitionem, you are looking at two single-element state matrices, i.e. we can P:={asexual} and Q:={sexual}. Also (per definitionem quaestionis) P=!Q and Q=!P. Thus, in this binary case, indeed !(!Q)=Q and !(!P)=P.

For some reason, you appear to be borrowing Dirac's bra-ket notation from quantum mechanics to denote state-to-state transition probabilities for an idealization or mathematical formalism modeling or representing the existence of asexually-reproducing, and of sexually-reproducing, species.

My *immediate* response is, STOP. WTF are you DOING? And WHY?

I don't care about any abstract representation using matrix mechanics. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You're going after a DIFFERENT question than the one I asked.

And in so doing, completely avoiding the actual question, and any potential difficulties posed therein.

Take the Earth as it existed x number of hundred or y number of billion years ago.

At some point in history, there WERE no multicellular creatures. And there was no sexual reproduction: internuclear transfer of genetic material among microbes doesn't count, as you don't have gametes.

Today, we have both macroscopic, multicellular creatures, and sex. (Hooray!)

I'm interested, not in a supposed phylogenetic progression showing "this species has hermaphrodites, that genus has hermaphroditic capabilities but generally engages in fertilization of another individual, this species began having female orgasms, there's Monica Lewinsky"...I'm interested in the details of the following:

1) What is the largest, or most "advanced", (yes I know evolution isn't about that, but that's how PBS and Nova present it, cf. "The Ascent of Man" and note the increasing sophistication of later species including first eyes, the binocular vision, then voting for Obaama) known multicellular creature to have reproduced entirely asexually?

2) Going from that creature, what specific genetic changes had to be made in a single leap, in order to begin sexual reproduction...?

Examples of the kind of thing that would occur to a layman might be:

1) specialized cells which produce proto-sperm and proto-eggs (e.g. I'm guessing the first sperm didn't have tails?)

2) changes to the cells in order to allow the complex, hitherto unknown process of "fertilization" to occur? (at what point in EVOLUTIONARY TIME did the change to the egg occur, so that the first sperm which penetrated, caused immediate changes to the lining of the egg, to prevent subsequent sperm from joining in the act and making either a chimera or an early "molar pregnancy" or teratoma?)

3) detailed changes to the chromosomes and to the epigenetic material to support the hitherto unknown process of *gestation*

4) information on if any of the above necessitated the presence of hitherto unknown genes, and if so, whether a) the presence of the new genes would by definition make a new species (kind of a sui generis since the definition of a species is the ability to breed, and nobody would have been breeding before this by the grounds of the question)

b) how this mutation would represent a "survival advantage" since the purported advantage of sexual reproduction is a faster combination/turnover of genes -- but the first cases of hermaphroditism would necessarily be Mother Nature telling an animal to go f*ck itself (and therefore representing even more inbreeding than incest!)

And, now that I come to think of it, the presence or development of any structures necessary to

a) propel the proto-sperm and/or proto eggs to a place where they could meet

b) development of any nerves, blood vessels, etc. to nourish the new structures

c) any genetic changes necessary to make those nerves, etc. appear at the right place?

You are postulating that , i.e. both states exist because some imaginary being decided that (for no apparent reason) it would be a good thing to have the same specie occur in both states.

No. As noted above, I am worrying about specific physiochemical DETAILS of the mechanism by which sexual reproduction first appeared.

My concern here is the molecular mechanism by which these changes took place.

Conversely, evolution postulates while the inverse is not true as Q apparently is a desirable state and u is a "gradient".

This is an oversimplification of the position, and thefore risks grave inaccuracy.

Thus, Dan's claim that This is the fallacy of 'begging the question' for assuming that what exists has 'evolved' and can be organized into 'transitional stages' is non-sensical. It forces u=0 without giving a justification. In layman's terms, Dan is saying "any exploration into u by observing P, Q is moot because it is based on the assumption that u<>0 but I demand u=0 a priori". In other words, "don't show me proofs of Evolution because by doing so you are postulating that Evolution is true".

No, what he's saying is that some of the required changes require large enough changes to the genome, and specific sets of changes to the genome, such that the odds of their spontaneous occurence are for all practical purposes zero, particularly given the small size. We're not dealing with any set large enough to be called an ensemble from statistical mechanics once we go to large enough creatures.

But so that this is not a unidirectional debate, what I would like to ask is this: "Show me that u MUST be 0". I.e., in our particular case, show me why P and Q NEED to coexist without a transition between the two.

All we have to do is observe: if there are cases (as I seem to recall upthread) that there exist yeasts which go back and forth between sexual and asexual reproduction, we *know* they coexist. What we are trying to flesh out is the mechanism by how this form of reproduction itself developed among more complex species -- and while we're at to find out why (if sexual reproduction confers such advantages) more unicellular creatures haven't tripped over it besides yeast.

This would provide valuable insight into the rate of major mutations -- subject of course to the proviso that we cannot accurately stipulate from the outside which factors might mitigate survival and thus provide a mini punk-eek cascade; and subject also to the note that even major external cladistic changes might not create true speciation, ring species not withstanding (a turkey baster of a chihuahua sperm into a Great Dane might allow breeding that way without the indignity of proffering the little gent a stepladder, whereas a turkey baster the other way would likely lead to maternal death late in gestation).

This isn't "ha ha gotcha I disproved evolution"; it's "let's comb out the tangles so we can discover just what predictive capabilities we have."

Cheers!

366 posted on 12/31/2011 4:13:20 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies ]

To: drtom
"In layman's terms, Dan is saying "any exploration into u by observing P, Q is moot because it is based on the assumption that u<>0 but I demand u=0 a priori". In other words, "don't show me proofs of Evolution because by doing so you are postulating that Evolution is true"."

No. I am saying that the fact that life exhibits a certain mechanism or behavior is not proof of evolution unless you engage in logical fallacy. You beg the question by assuming that you are showing a 'proof of evolution'. All you have really done is offer a simple fact of life. Nothing more.

371 posted on 12/31/2011 4:44:00 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson