Bio-evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object

=== Poster noshellswill ===
thread: 
Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to evolution? 
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d0b4b15bdeb5ddde/d0dd2d76d4e5ab6?q=#0d0dd2d76d4e5ab6
bio-evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object 
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8c116c87fe4e497d?tvc=1
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/d0b4b15bdeb5ddde/49264566d7bc8a26?rnum=91&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd0b4b15bdeb5ddde%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_deb2c9a6c0005644
True, that bit of maths won't win many awards - I won't bet $$.05 on my
terminology. Hack away if you feel the need. Let's remember what was/is
the original issue. Can one always expect a trouble-free translation from
verbal expression of a concept to some maths formulation ? I think a
"reasonable mans" answer is ... NO.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&scoring=&lr=&sitesearch=groups.google.com&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2012&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=noshellswill&safe=off
=== Notes ===
back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8c116c87fe4e497d?tvc=1
Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a 
fundamental operator ( such as d/dx ) to express the verbally stated concept of "selection".
But almost as bad ... Wikipedia has a curt discussion summarizing the 
disagreement as to the OBJECT of selection.
"....... 
A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of 
biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species) 
that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been 
intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which 
evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different 
levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of 
selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves, 
i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of 
altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of 
individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the 
context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."
Pretty bad, eh for a chatty group of 'naturalist' pretenders to the 
higher courts of understanding? The evolutionary material is presented 
with all the pretensions of a science ( sociologists do that too ), 
but underneath the "just-so" stories it's gutless - no robust dynamic 
and no agreed-upon object. 
For all we know, the actual "unit of selection" may be a single hydrogen 
bond in some obscure sugar. Nice work Charlie, Dawkins will be proud of 
you.
=== Notes ===
This page is from poster 
=== replies to lenny ===
http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys450/MARKO/N013.html
http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys450/
http://www.biophysics.northwestern.edu/preceptors/JohnMarko.html
http://www.biophysics.northwestern.edu/research/index.html Protein folding
Prof. Marko
NoshellNotes
=== noshell and wilkins ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8c116c87fe4e497d?tvc=1
=== bio evo lacks a mechanism ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8c116c87fe4e497d?tvc=1
=== creationist ===
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/fc1303abebc4655b/e05c509b81d607c8?q=#e05c509b81d607c8
=== fdfd ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/71291a1312da52de/d73ce921309e4e02?q=#d73ce921309e4e02
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:39:41 -0800, Bodega wrote:
>> You would better spend your time reading science books. Even older
>> stuff. Anything by Landau And Lifshitz does not waste your effort.
> I presume a word was inadvertently left out there. "Origin of Species"
> is a science book.
BigB:
That's right, I omitted no word. Bio-evol having NO dynamic, and a
multitude of (contradictory) objects of that lacking dynamic is no
real science. That's why it's called NATURAL HISTORY. Or as I like
to humorously relate ...'... two nekked naturalists walking
hand-in-hand through green meadows ...' . Nothing useful can be done
with it.
Of-course the interested "life-science" student may always study biochem,
microbiology, anatomy or molecular biology. Lots of real science there and
a possibility of generating fundamental insights into lifes' developmental
process.
For any of those disciplines a student would be well advised to keep one
L&L copy at his workbench/computer, another beside his bed. Darwin ... if
you must, store him by-the-crapper with Freud and Marx for light
distraction during necessary moments..... 
=== adf ===
Frank:
I've opinioned before on the connection between "social"
Dawinism and Nazi behavior. I referenced a 'first person account' by W. J.
Bryant based on his experience as a US diplomat in Germany after WW1.
I don't remember any return comment, nor was my point so well-made that it
demanded an answer --YMMV. A local expert in early 20-th century German
history could enlighten us all. To my way of thinking, the issue is
historical not conceptual or logical.
As for the movie EXPELLED ... yes I've read about it on this n.g. , but
have read no further reviews nor have I seen it nor do I have any
particular interest in the movie. AFAIK the movie has NO relevance to
any scientific enterprise or concepts.
"Artistic merit" or lit-crit issues belong on another n.g.
nss 
=== asdf ===
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote:
> Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
> Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
> would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
> not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
> best guess for an alternate explanation.
> This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
> wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
> even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
> set the record straight about that?
> So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
> that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.
Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
"Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
*NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
Category:TauTology