Dear Joe et al, thank you for your thoughts on experimental evidence for evolutionary biology. As I said earlier in this thread, I was asking for specific experimental evidence for evolution showing the mechanism for adaptive causation. The things you mentioned- "macro-evolutionary" and "micro-evolutionary" processes. Also, there are many different kinds of evidence or methods for testing evolutionary claims:  phylogenetic inferences, the paleontological record, observational studies, studying genetic markers and characterizing phenotypic variation, the comparative method, and, yes, even some experimentation- are all associations and correlations, not 'gain and loss of function experiments that are consistent with evolutionary changes, particularly those that allowed for adaptation to environmental changes. By analogy, there were data for Astrology that showed corelations and associations, but it was not predictive until the Sun was recognized as the center of the Solar System....only then were celestial events predicted, like Halley's Comet returning every 75 years, or Eclipses, for example.

In my papers I have, for example, pointed out the duplication of specific genes such as the Parathyroid Hormone-related Protein Receptor gene, the Glucocorticoid Receptor gene and the Beta Adrenergic Receptor gene that have been documented to have occurred during the vertebrate water-land transition, causing the evolution of humans from fish. I have provided experimental evidence for the role each of those genes has played in the evolution of such land-adaptive traits as the lung, kidney, skin and brain (the brain having evolved from the skin based on Nick Holland's skin-brain hypothesis). The most rigorous evidence for the role played by those genes is to delete them specifically in embryonic mice and show how they affect those phenotypes. For example, deletion of the PTHrP gene prevents the formation of alveoli in the lung and the development of the skin; deletion of the beta adrenergic receptor inhibits the evolution of the heart from three chambers to four (fish to mammals); and the Glucocorticoid receptor has multiple effects on land adaptation, not the least of which is the stimulation of beta adrenergic receptors in the lung, allowing for the independent regulation of blood pressure in the systemic and pulmonary circulations. Furthermore, in the attached paper, I demonstrated that the cellular-molecular changes in the lung over the course of phylogeny were caused by specific environmental changes that brought about equally specific adaptational physiologic changes.

I mention all of that to contrast it with the Resnick experiments that only show the 'potential' for adaptive change, but don't reduce the predation to the cellular-molecular level where the relationship to environmental change could be experimentally tested. When I am challenged in saying that there is no experimental evidence for evolution, I am usually directed to the work of Richard Lenski, a microbiologist who has published extensively on the subject of 'evolutionary change' in bacteria in response to environmental stress caused by depriving the bacteria of certain nutrients. But that doesn't explain how a bacillus became a cocci, for example, in a manner consistent with some environmental change that occurred contemporaneously....that's evolution, not artificial conditions that demonstrate the potential for evolutionary change. 

I have always thought that random genetic mutation as the source of evolutionary change made no sense because it would only affect one allele, affecting the phenotype of the host in ways that would be deleterious because such mutations are detrimental physiologically to begin with....and then to find a mate with the same mutation? The odds of two such random mutations occurring in mating pairs is highly improbable, not to mention that the steps in evolution are interrelated physiologically with one another in ways that can be seen when the organism is stricken with chronic illness- for example emphysema is a simplification disease that is the result of the pathologic breakdown in the partitioning of the alveoli into smaller and smaller units, increasing the efficiency of gas exchange from the swim bladder of fish to the lungs of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds over the course of phylogeny. How is that feasible based on a random genetic mutation? I have proposed that such physiologic adaptations are caused by physiologic stress, increasing blood flow through the capillaries, generating Radical Oxygen Species known to cause gene mutations and duplications, but not at random, but in the context of the specific tissues and organs being affected. In reaction to the stress/gene mutation-duplication, the cells involved in the homeostatic control having been lost then interact to re-establish homeostasis, by definition, in compliance with the prevailing environmental conditions....that's evolution.

So for all of the above reasons, conventional Darwinian evolution remains a belief instead of being scientifically founded on testable/refutable experimental data (Popper). I hope that wasn't too complicated. Please feel free to critique... John

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:18 PM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear John et al.:


I do not see any value in trying to upstage you or anyone else, especially since I don't have the knowledge or expertise in your field. (For that matter, I don't consider myself to be an expert even in my own field!)


Rather, as a casual student of biology for most of my life and as someone who also sees your work as fascinating, I admit to being a bit perplexed by your antipathy toward evolutionary theory. I  wonder if that's mainly a function of the language game? For example, there are different lines of debate and evidence regarding "macro-evolutionary" and "micro-evolutionary" processes. Also, there are many different kinds of evidence or methods for testing evolutionary claims:  phylogenetic inferences, the paleontological record, observational studies, studying genetic markers and characterizing phenotypic variation, the comparative method, and, yes, even some experimentation. None of this supports evolutionary theory? On that latter form of scientific testing (experimentation), I've attached a couple of examples (one quite dated) from the work of Reznick and colleagues. Would this qualify as experimental evidence in support of (life-history or rapid) evolutionary processes in your view?


The other problem involves testing any complex processes over sufficient time scales, especially where the evidence has been generated gradually over the distant past, such as the formations of galaxies and macro-evolutionary processes. Thus I wonder too if perhaps you are sympathetic to some aspects of evolution, but critical of those that have insufficient evidence regarding "mechanisms"? Certainly at the micro-level of evolution, I see great value in your own work in terms of cell-cell communication and reorganization. But that strikes me as different that evolution at the species level. Using an analogy from my own area of study, there's a vast difference between understanding "individual human development" and "societal development". Until convinced by evidence and logic, I'd argue that while both involve "people," the explanatory processes that help us understand these two different developmental processes are quite different. All best regards, -Joe



Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Associate Academic Dean

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491

Fax: (519) 963-1263

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________

eiπ + 1 = 0



From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: In Need of a Clear Language System
 
My last email was from my phone, so a bit 'terse'....it was directed to Gregg, but if anyone else can cite experimental evidence for evolution I would be welcome being 'upstaged'......John

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:32 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Can you cite experimental evidence for evolution?

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

 

  You bring up Dobzhansky. Great, let’s talk about him. His actual quote was “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.” And he based that claim on the remarkable synthesis of Darwinian natural selection and molecular genetics. So, you are arguing that we should listen to Dobzhansky? And yet, you also write:

"There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, yet we hang on to that theory for dear life, knowing it is illogical and untestable/unrefutable”  (from Sat 3/9).

 

I think this is basically a ludicrous claim to make. Which means there is much more to systemic knowledge than empirical evidence alone. There is interpretation of what the data mean and how to think about it. I don’t share your interpretations of empirical evidence.  

 

Here is how I make sense of the puzzle:

 

Natural selection operating on genetic combinations is obviously key. However, I do consider it to be significantly incomplete. I think there is much more capacity for organisms to evolve into niches than standard genetic mutation theory allows. The brings in epigenetics (see my blog on this here). In addition, I agree with you that cell theory is not properly integrated with the modern synthesis. So, I am with you the modern synthesis needs a significant Newton-into-Einstein overhaul. And I think you are “seer” in this regard.

 

But, John, your knowledge of philosophy and big picture synthetic views of psychology and the social sciences, well, quite limited in many ways. So, I embrace the “Torday line” which to me incorporates your findings and explains your vision from my vantage point.

 

Bottom line: We have different interpretations of data and their implications and different ways to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. Lots of compatibility, but also some incommensurability. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on, shall we? Or you and I can back channel if you want.  

 

Best,
Gregg  

 

 

 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JOHN TORDAY
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: In Need of a Clear Language System

 

Dear ToKers, the great debacles of science like Heliocentrism, Microbe Theory, Vitalism, DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, The Big Bang, have all been resolved by experimental evidence. Where is the experimental evidence for the ToK/UTUA? I ask because this is the challenge for me, which I have offered to resolve by interjecting the experimenal evidence into Gregg's ToK as the Joint Points. He chooses to reject that out of hand as being a different systematic approach to the ToK. I dispute that, and in my defense I will cite Theodosius Dobzhansky, the pre-eminent evolutionist, who said that 'evolution is all of biology', psychology being a subset of biology. If my take on evolution is unacceptable, then some other body of experimental data must be offered in order to resolve this debate. I offer this perspective in the spirit of constructive debate....John

 

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks Brent and Gregg for these additional comments and clarifications. I find the Canonizer platform incredibly helpful and a great mechanism for comparing arguments and theoretical perspectives, especially since we have much more limited opportunities in the academic world through our traditional publication processes. Especially helpful for people to locate themselves vis-a-vis others in a constructive fashion. Continued success Brent, 

 

-Joe

 

Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Associate Academic Dean

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491

Fax: (519) 963-1263

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________

eiπ + 1 = 0

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: In Need of a Clear Language System

 

Thanks for this wonderful description, Brent.

 

As my slides suggested, I am definitely in the Representational Qualia Theory camp. It is interesting because after that, I am not sure where to place myself. (I joined and put myself there).

 

That means that with canonizer I can see clearly where my approach falls relative to others, which is super helpful. I almost went with biological naturalism via John Searle. However, I don’t quite share his language. I think that the next “breakdown” point I would argue for is “Property Quadism” to contrast with property dualism. Property dualism goes under mind-brain identity. I disagree with that language system, because I make very clear distinctions between mind (the mind) and consciousness. Property quadism stems from the ToK and the claim that, ontologically, there are four dimensions of behavioral complexity (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture) that characterize the behavioral patterns of objects, organisms, animals, and persons.

 

Thus, under RQT I would add UTUA Theory of Knowledge…

 

Fascinating.


Best,

Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Brent Allsop
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: In Need of a Clear Language System

 

Hi Mark,

 

You seem to not know much about how canonizer works, what it is, or what it has already accomplished.

 

You indicated how “Crowd Sourcing” is not the source to “wisdom” or “understanding” and that the crowd is “clueless”.  I agree with you, that currently the crowd is quite clueless.  The only reason we want to measure this cluelessness, using the default popular consensus canonizer algorithm, is so we can compare this to the “expert consensus” as measured by expert canonizer algorithms.  What you can measure, will improve.  This allows the experts to better find out what the popular consensus is.  Knowing where the crowd is mistaken and why, they can then better form the expert consensus in a way that the crowd can better keep up.  One of many ways this canonization process amplifies the wisdom of the previously, clueless.  For example, global warming experts will finally be able to know what the crowd believes, and why.  And they will be able to measure which arguments better convince the crowd…  Again, amplifying the wisdom of the crowd.

 

Before Canonizer.com existed, many of the notes groups and forums  I participated in, even the philosophy ones, would try to shame people into not bringing up the topic of “qualia”, knowing that this would just lead to a shouting match, where no matter what you referenced from what was coming out of the Ivory Tower and Peer reviewed journals, someone else would throw an equally ivory towers reference claiming it was “fake news”.  The same old yelling match, and reference throwing at each other never made any progress, and ultimately one side or the other would accuse the other of being Nazis.  The stuff being published in peer reviewed journals is no different.  This fear and loathing everyone has of even bring up the topic of qualia, as a result of all this, is the biggest reason the crowd is so clueless.  Even many neural experimentalist fear bringing up the word qualia.  If they try to consult the peer review journals on this, it is all junk, so they just give up after a few years.  Jack Galant is a very good example of exactly this.

 

Now, when you go into forums, where people know what canonizer.com is, everything has changed dramatically.  Talking about qualia is now fun.  Anyone that brings up qualia, now, is quickly met with people pointing to links, describing the state of the art of emerging expert consensus camps held by the participants in the forums.  Instead of all the repeated old arguments, on the occasion someone does bring a new argument or scientific results to the conversation that is not yet canonized, you canonize that new argument.  You can measure the quality of such arguments and evidence by how many people they convert.  We are already seeing this.  Again, that which you measure, improves the wisdom of the crowd.  These kinds of conversations, in forums, are now very fun, and you see things start to progress at an extraordinary rate, instead of being stuck on the same old stupid arguments, over and over again.  We even had a high school student come to canonizer.com, clearly initially, quite naive about many of the good arguments and theories.  Within a few months, since he was able to ignore all the old stuff by all the old experts taught in college classes, which most experts now agree have been falsified, he was competing with PhDs that had been working and publishing in the field for years with his contributions.

 

There are also LOTS of people that have what they believe to be the “Solution” to the hard problem, which they can’t get published, for lots of various reasons, including the fact that many of the ideas look really crazy, and have nothing to do with the real “hard problem”.  These kinds of people flock to canonizer.com, because it is finally a place where they can, not just publish their work they can canonize it, and start finding other people that agree with them, building consensus around their best ideas, and abandoning the bad ones.

 

Now that canonizer has been around, and we’ve been doing the consciousness consensus project for more than 10 years we’ve made a real breakthrough.  The “Representational Qualia Theory”, which has almost unanimous expert consensus, is not only proving how much consensus is possible in this field, it is the real solution to bridging the explanatory gap, describing a real way to approach the qualitative nature of consciousness scientifically. 

 

The Ivory tower and peer reviewed journal industry has been struggling with this so called “hard problem’, for hundreds of years. About all they’ve given anyone, is that there is no consensus on anything.  Only the bad arguments are the ones that get so often bleated, by the polarized herding crowd.  Now, with Canonizer, no more.

 

You also said: “You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.”

Which is also incorrect.  The domain name “canonizer.com” is owned by Canonizer.com LLC, and nobody could get a copyright on a word like that.  We're using it quite successfully already.

 

Brent

 

 

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Brent:

Yes, I know.  As a result, you will fail.  Pick a different name . . . <g>

"Crowd Sourcing" is a fad that people increasingly recognize is *not* 
the source to "wisdom."  It certainly has its purposes -- like if 
you're trying to build "consensus" -- but "understanding" isn't one of 
them.

Most people have no clue what is going on -- for good reason.  You 
*really* only need to understand something because you are 
"responsible" for the outcome.  That means yourself, your family, your 
job -- that's it.  Enough.  No more.

The notion that a group of people without that direct engagement with 
the subject-at-hand should have something "intelligent" to say is 
idiotic.  They never will and, indeed, they really shouldn't.

President of the US?  Negotiations with North Korea?  None of my 
business.  Opinions?  Don't have one.  Stick your opinion survey where 
the sun doesn't shine (as more-and-more people are, in fact, telling 
the pollster)  . . . !!

"Democracy" -- particularly of the *direct* sort -- is a hoax.  I know 
some of the people who spread this idea, including those who did it to 
the "shop floor" and they were quite idealistic about it.  They also 
thought we should all live our lives like the Aboriginals.  Huddled 
around the fire, starring at the flickering images on the tent wall.   
Without literacy.  Rousseau would have liked it, I suspect.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Fred-5FEmery&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=19-AJ6b2uPtOcvH5PZ8v3aoWOBbQtP-h_fMqr6Mdg9k&s=Str2nuv8x8KlwqngwxVOqJvsjde8rsPQ0zWS5JbgpEA&e=

You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.  The 
environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point 
of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't.

So don't even try (unless you want to learn a lesson that you have 
already been taught) . . . <g>

Mark

Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> We at canonizer.com are using and defining canonize in a new way, or giving
> it a new, or additional definition.
>
>
>
> Where as the traditional meaning is based on a hierarchy or “ecclesiastical
> definition” our meaning is simply crowd sourced or built by consensus.
> Instead of top down, it is bottom up.  Instead of dictated from above, it
> is self-organized, bottom up.
>
>
>
> Where the traditional usage is based on tradition, our usage is dynamic,
> and always changing.  It is a measure of the state of the art of a standard
> scientific consensus, theory, and belief.
>
>
>
> It is simply what the participants build consensus around what they want,
> and the current state of the art of the best terminology we chose to use.
>
>
>
> At canonizer.com, to “canonize” something, is to find out, concisely and
> quantitatively, what everyone truly wants or believes.  Then once that is
> known, to get it all, for everyone.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John/Gregg:
>>
>> This is *classic* . . . !!
>>
>> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC.  Two different "sensibilities."
>> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ??
>>
>> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are
>> *both* now obsolete.  Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror."  Both
>> looking backwards.
>>
>>  From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language
>> systems."  From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all
>> this out -- "scientifically."
>>
>> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked.  Neither
>> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different
>> psycho-technological environments are at work.  And neither will those
>> who participate in the "Canonizer" game.
>>
>> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely
>> different sensibility to the "debate."
>>
>> Yes, this is classic . . . <g>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC.  And
>> it cannot be decided by a "vote."  It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law."
>>   What a world of surprises awaits us all.
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e=
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1