Susan Mazur interviews him for the Huffington Post [Günther Witzany: Modern Synthesis "Must Be Replaced," Communication Key to Evolution]. Recall that Susan Mazur is fixated on the Altenburg 16 and their attempts to radically revise evolutionary theory without understanding anything about Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. Günther Witzany is a philosopher. He was not one of the Altenberg 16 but he clearly wants to be part of the outer circle. It's not clear why anyone should consider him an expert on evolutionary biology.
Susan Mazur did us a great favor when she asked him if he would like to make a final point. His answer shows us why we can ignore him.
The older concepts we have now for a half century cannot sufficiently explain the complex tendency of the genetic code. They can't explain the functions of mobile genetic elements and the endogenous retroviruses and non-coding RNAs. Also, the central dogma of molecular biology has been falsified -- that is, the way is always from DNA to RNA to proteins to anything else, or the other "dogmas," e.g., replication errors drive evolutionary genetic variation, that one gene codes for one protein and that non-coding DNA is junk. All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now. ...Thank-you Susan. Keep up the good work. Fools need to be exposed.
210 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 210 of 210I never claimed that the time delay is necessary for the production of infrasound.
Oh yes, you did.
"Why," asked Chris, "would the giraffe need a timing delay to achieve resonance of the entire acoustic chamber?"
"The short answer," said Gary, "is that they would otherwise likely only be able to squeak like a mouse instead of being able to communicate over long distances using low frequency infrasound."
It's simply an indicator of the lowest frequency that these large animals are able to produce.
No, it isn't. It's correlated with their neck length, and that's it. The lowest fundamental frequency they can produce is determined by the length of the vocal folds.
Gary: “I never claimed that the time delay is necessary for the production of infrasound.”
Gary, 20 May 2014, ATBC
“15 foot detour = 4.5 meters ........... Where the actual velocity equals ~4.5 m/s the time delay is ~1 second, which is the sound-chamber resonance shown in the video for a long distance adult giraffe call ......the math clearly indicates further investigation should have first been conducted, before concluding that a delay that increases with the length of the chamber to be resonated indicates a bad design. “
Also Gary “Ironically giraffes do not make the trumpeting type sounds like other large animals such as elephants are able to. This is expected of a vocal circuit that has a longer time delay than the others.”
Also Gary: “I can see that you have never designed acoustic circuits to resonate a speaker or other resonant device. If the time delay between each wave is too short all you will hear (if anything) is a low volume high pitched squeal. For proper operation the system has to be timed to operate above and below the resonant frequency. It's very basic electronics, acoustics.”
Also Gary “See pages 1 through 9 (especially page 4) for an example of the information that is necessary to test your hypothesis that the extra length (hence time delay) of the recurrent laryngeal nerve serves no purpose”
Also Gary, “ the time delay is ....... simply an indicator of the lowest frequency that these large animals are able to produce”
No, it’s not. Again, you have no evidence that there is a time delay, and we can produce infrasound from a dead larynx that has no nerve activity, and hence no transmission lag. Its nerves have passed on. They are no more. They have ceased to be. They’ve expired and gone to meet their maker. Bereft of life, their nervous processes are now history. They’ve kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil. It is an excised larynx, but it can still join the bleedin’ infrasonic choir inaudible.
Oh, and you wanted a circuit diagram: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/83/246839251_0320b34731_b.jpg
There are examples of people whose left laryngial nerve, for some developmental reason, did not route around the aortic arch but went directly to the larynx. These individuals had no impairment or any discernible defect in speech or vocalization.
This evidence would contradict the statement that "All terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve that loops around the aortic arch." but it's a good start. I recall in another thread it was said that their vocal system tires more easily, which I cannot verify. So we're still back to having no conclusive evidence either way. And if it can be reliably concluded that the extra length has no influence at all then the hypothesis that it's a bad/poor/incompetent design would be false. For it to reliably test true those who do not have the loop would need to have an advantage over those who do, such as their being the best singers in the world and/or are less prone to their vocal system tiring.
Testing the available data is not a claim that time delay is necessary for the production of infrasound. I have also been talking about SENSORY anyway, so stop moving the goalposts!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary Gaulin - Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:55:00 PM
And it's important to keep in mind that these are two-way control circuits with sensory feedback that goes back to the brain, not a single connection that simply flexes a muscle.
"This evidence would contradict the statement that "All terrestrial vertebrates have a recurrent left laryngial nerve that loops around the aortic arch." but it's a good start."
Huh? This is a developmental anomaly, Gary. All terrestrial vertebrates also have five digits per limb, even if by their evolutionary pathways they now only have vestigial remnants of some of these digits. Sometimes cats, dogs, humans, etc., have 6 digits or more on one or more limbs. It is a developmental anomaly and does not change in any way the fact that there are 5 digits per limb. It doesn't contradict the statement at all, but rather shows by exception it is true.
" I recall in another thread it was said that their vocal system tires more easily, which I cannot verify. So we're still back to having no conclusive evidence either way."
No, I don't recall that from any other thread or any of the readings I have done. From everything I have read, a direct left laryngial nerve produces no deficit whatsoever. People aren't even aware of it unless it is discovered coincidentally. So the observations i have presented are evidence to support that the recurrent left laryngial nerve does not serve a useful purpose.
"And if it can be reliably concluded that the extra length has no influence at all then the hypothesis that it's a bad/poor/incompetent design would be false. For it to reliably test true those who do not have the loop would need to have an advantage over those who do, such as their being the best singers in the world and/or are less prone to their vocal system tiring."{
This does not logically follow at all. For it to logically test true the short laryngial nerve folks don't have to be better at anything. Both phenotypes function just fine which is logical evidence that the recurrent form confers no advantage or purpose. You are the one claiming it has some purpose, but in its absence the person is completely unimpaired. This suggests you are wrong and it serves no adaptive purpose.
Which brings up another point. If the recurrent left laryngial nerve were to confer some selective advantage, it is not a logical conclusion that it is the work of some supernatural intelligent designer. It could have been selected for as an advantage by conventional evolutionary mechanisms over the course of evolution of terrestrial tetrapods.
N.Wells didn't move the goalposts. He didn't say anything that he hasn't already said, or that you already said.
If the recurrent left laryngial nerve were to confer some selective advantage, it is not a logical conclusion that it is the work of some supernatural intelligent designer.
I agree that the path of the RLN being an advantage would not conclude that it is the work of some "supernatural intelligent designer". Which makes me wonder why you even mentioned such a ridiculous thing.
"I agree that the path of the RLN being an advantage would not conclude that it is the work of some "supernatural intelligent designer". "
Great, so we agree an intelligent designer is unnecessary and the more parsimonious explanation of conventional evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient. High five!
It's all just a strawman argument to begin with. Regardless of what you want to believe there is no scientific evidence at all against the Theory of Intelligent Design that I defend.
Post a Comment