|
Author
|
Topic: Implications of Behe and Snoke paper
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 15. July 2006 00:04
Zachriel: quote:
Bruce Fast: "Maybe you should go over there and convince those guys that ID should limit itself to abiogenesis and the cambiran explosion."
Their stated policy specifically precludes criticism of Intelligent Design.
Hmmm, this site, uncommondescent.com and telicthoughts.com, the sites that I participate in actively certainly have a reasonable set of non-IDers happily criticizing ID.
However, I have asked that you suggest that the ID community limit itself to abiogenesis and to the cambrian explosion. I suspect that if this were your rant, if every time the IDer's case does not relate to these two topics (which is most of the time) you said, "hey, ID must limit itself to abiogenesis and the cambrian explosion" you would be nixed from these sites, because such a position is silly.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. July 2006 01:07
Reproductive rate, mutational rate, population size, none of these ever had anythimng to do with a past evolution, an evoloution that is not even going on any more. Neither did sexual (Mendelian) reproduction, natural selection nor chance. Like ontogeny, phylgeny was determined from beginning to end. Don't take my word for it.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"Hereditary variations are restricted in number and develop in determined direction."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progrsssive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
ibid
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid
Referring both to ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance,"
ibid, page 134
In short, ALL of evolution WAS PRESCRIBED.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. July 2006 09:10
Somewhat Off-topic
Bruce Fast: "uncommondescent.com ...actively certainly have a reasonable set of non-IDers happily criticizing ID"
The policy at Uncommon Descent is that "if you are an ID-critic you’ll probably stay on [the Potential Trouble list]". That is certainly their privilege. More importantly, their editing policy is unjust, not always publishing responses to even pointed questions, then triumphally declaring that no one has an answer.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2006/06/uncommon-dissent.html
And I have been warned by moderator@iscid.org about defending evolution. [edit: maybe that wasn't the moderator. the message was somewhat garbled.] For the record, I am open-minded to evidence. But I am skeptical and will remain so until such evidence is presented and it survives reasonable challenges.
Bruce Fast: "I have asked that you suggest that the ID community limit itself to abiogenesis and to the cambrian explosion."
I would certainly do no such thing. But most of Intelligent Design arguments seem to revolve around gaps in the knowledge of processes that occurred in the Cambrian or before.
You did mention convergence in marsupials and mammals. Most biologists have no trouble with the assertion that these are examples of convergence due to standard evolutionary processes. One support for this conclusion is that the similarities are only broad morphological similarities often related to the habitat where the organism evolved, but that closer examination reveals that the adapatations are of existing structures in the distinct lineages.
Bruce Fast: "For instance, over on Uncommon Descent there is currently a raging discussion of the convergence found between the marsupials and the placentals."
As I mentioned, they carefully moderate contrary views at Uncommon Descent. You could perhaps do a bit of research and make such an assertion here (assuming after reviewing the evidence you still agree with the conclusions) if you want.
[ 15. July 2006, 10:03: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. July 2006 10:32
Evolution is not synonymous with the Darwinian version which is a total failure.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
Johh A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. July 2006 11:09
I presented powerful evidence, first revealed by Schindewolf. that the similarties beween marsupial and placental mammals indicate a common design which, in my view, must have been "prescribed" in the genomes of both lines. Schindewolf himself used the word "designed" to describe those similarities, a word which to this day inflames the atheist mentality of the Darwinian zealot. They are simply incapable of accepting any indication of purpose in the universe. It boggles my mind that such souls still exist, utterly oblivious to that which is so obvious to some of us. They simply must be "born that way."
It is most beautifully illustrated in the figure from Schindewolf in my PEH paper comparing the skulls of placental and marsupial saber-toothed cats, species separated by millions of years in time and thousands of miles in geographic locale. There is no conceivable way that such profound similarities could ever have arisen through natural selection of allelic mutations.
The gradualist, incremental interpretation by the Darwinists is a myth like every other aspect of the Darwinian fairy tale. Every true species appeared full blown in its final configuration with the possible exception of slow imcremental changes that MAY have taken place over vast periods of time. These include the tendency toward gigantism which without exception has invariably led to extinction as proven by the fossil record of the successive ages of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals. Even they were probably saltational, without transitional forms.
"We might as well stop lookimg for the missing links as they never existed"
Otto Schindewolf
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
ibid
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 19. July 2006 15:28
Zach
quote:
Jehu: "So you cannot have incredibly large populations to help you get around the mathmatical improbabilities of mutating a novel gene and at the same time have small populations to explain the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution."
Zach:Strawmen don't evolve in small populations, that's correct. However, that is not what the Theory of Evolution proposes. Rather, small changes accumulate in isolated populations
My apologies. I was assuming that isolated populations do not have the billions of organisms needed to cross a small space within 100 million generations. If isolated populations have these large populations, exactly what makes them isolated?
[ 19. July 2006, 16:09: Message edited by: Jehu ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. July 2006 19:22
Population genetics never had anything to do with evolution either. It is just one more aspect of the Darwinian fairy tale.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 19. July 2006 21:45
I covered this before.
Jehu: "So you cannot have incredibly large populations to help you get around the mathmatical improbabilities of mutating a novel gene and at the same time have small populations to explain the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution."
(Fossil evidence strongly supports the nested hierarchy of descent.)
Zachriel: Strawmen don't evolve in small populations, that's correct. However, that is not what the Theory of Evolution proposes. Rather, small changes accumulate in isolated populations.
Jehu: "My apologies. I was assuming that isolated populations do not have the billions of organisms needed to cross a small space within 100 million generations."
(There are about a thousand billion bacteria in a single gram of soil.)
Jehu: "If isolated populations have these large populations, exactly what makes them isolated?"
It's irrelevant. You are positing single large leaps. The Theory of Evolution proposes relatively small changes which accumulate to create a diverse population.
According to your own cite, "A Hierarchical Approach to Protein Molecular Evolution", Bogarad and Deem (PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 6, 2591-2595, March 16, 1999)
1. it doesn't require large numbers of point-mutations to explore and discover novel sequences, and each novel sequence provides a new point of departure for further exploration;
"Random assembly and base substitution are ideally suited for searching local regions of polypeptide space, as demonstrated experimentally"
2. other mechanisms besides point-mutations and even homologous recombination are involved.
"More generally, it seems likely that organization into higher-order fundamental units such as nucleic acids, the genetic code, secondary and tertiary structure, cellular compartmentalization, cell types, and germ layers allows systems to escape complexity barriers and potentiates explosions in diversity."
But let's assume that point-mutation was the only known mechanism of novelty in genomes. And it was determined that point-mutation was not sufficient to account for the variation found in genomes. The scientific conclusion would not be that an Intelligent Designer did it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 20. July 2006 03:44
Jehu: "My apologies. I was assuming that isolated populations do not have the billions of organisms needed to cross a small space within 100 million generations."
ZachThere are about a thousand billion bacteria in a single gram of soil.
Jehu I assume bacteria are not the only thing that needs to evolve. And Punctuated Equilibrium was a theory designed to explain the gaps in the fossil record not gaps in bacteria.
Jehu: "If isolated populations have these large populations, exactly what makes them isolated?"
Zach It's irrelevant. You are positing single large leaps. The Theory of Evolution proposes relatively small changes which accumulate to create a diverse population.
Jehu No. I am not positing single large leaps. You are avoiding the question. Even small changes require walks which are too large for anything other than population sizes in the billions.
Zach mechanisms besides point-mutations and even homologous recombination are involved.
Jehu Of course, the whole point of the papers I cited was that point mutations and homologous recombination cannot cross the needed space.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 20. July 2006 05:45
Jehu: "I assume bacteria are not the only thing that needs to evolve."
No, but according to the Behe and Snoke paper, there is clearly no problem with the evolution of novel genes in bacteria, even using very limited point-mutations.
Jehu: "And Punctuated Equilibrium was a theory designed to explain the gaps in the fossil record not gaps in bacteria."
Punctuated Equilibrium was only posited to explain apparent gaps at the species level, and doesn't apply at higher taxonomic levels. Though many scientists now accept Punctuated Equilibrium may be a factor in some transitions, many also don't believe it is a factor in most evolutionary sequences.
Jehu: "I am not positing single large leaps. You are avoiding the question. Even small changes require walks which are too large for anything other than population sizes in the billions."
That's your claim, but that is contrary to the assumptions of the Behe and Snoke paper, and the findings of your cite.
"Random assembly and base substitution are ideally suited for searching local regions of polypeptide space, as demonstrated experimentally."
Jehu: "Of course, the whole point of the papers I cited was that point mutations and homologous recombination cannot cross the needed space."
Yes, and then they proposed a solution and provided the experimental basis to support their hypothesis. I assume you read the highly cited paper you mentioned.
Bogarad and Deem: "Nonhomologous DNA recombination, rearrangement, and insertion allow for the combinatorial creation of productive tertiary folds by way of the novel juxtaposition of suitable encoded structures. Starting with very small pools of low-energy secondary structures, we evolved new protein folds with specific binding constants ~10^7 higher than those optimized by base substitution alone. More generally, it seems likely that organization into higher-order fundamental units such as nucleic acids, the genetic code, secondary and tertiary structure, cellular compartmentalization, cell types, and germ layers allows systems to escape complexity barriers and potentiates explosions in diversity."
[ 20. July 2006, 05:48: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. July 2006 15:58
There is no THEORY OF EVOLUTION, just two thoroughly failed hypotheses, Darwinism and Lamarckism and one new one that is in concert with everything we really know, the PEH. It is being tested every day and so far is doing just fine.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 20. July 2006 18:46
Zach:
quote:
But let's assume that point-mutation was the only known mechanism of novelty in genomes. And it was determined that point-mutation was not sufficient to account for the variation found in genomes. The scientific conclusion would not be that an Intelligent Designer did it. That's a fallacious argument from ignorance, angels pushing planets on crystal spheres.
That is an interesting admission of your a priori philosophical commitment to naturalistic materialism. quote:
Rather, additional mechanisms would be sought after, whether these were mechanisms of design or natural contingency. The mechanisms found thus far are all natural processes, and there is no reason to suspect design other than people's intuition and desire for science to ratify their metaphysical and religious beliefs.
Have the mechanisms been found? Or are you just accepting current proposals as sufficient in order to ratify your commitment to naturalistic materialism?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 20. July 2006 19:34
Zach,
In regards to our discussion on Punctuated Equilibrium, we started as follows: quote:
Jehu: "So you cannot have incredibly large populations to help you get around the mathmatical improbabilities of mutating a novel gene and at the same time have small populations to explain the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution."
Zach: Strawmen don't evolve in small populations, that's correct. However, that is not what the Theory of Evolution proposes. Rather, small changes accumulate in isolated populations
So the theory of evolution doesn't propose that evolution happens in small populations? Here is what Stephen J. Gould says about PE. quote:
"A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
So, evolution does claim that small populations are where evolution happens. As Gould said in the above quote: quote:
Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims.
PE was created because of the fossil record shows stasis with the sudden appearance of fully developed forms. As Gould says plain as day. quote:
What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.
Of course I have to throw in what is perhaps Gould's most famous quote: quote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
And of course Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of a standard text on paleontology, should not be left out quote:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
...Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
-Dr. Colin Patterson in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
It appears to me that paleontologists like PE because it conforms to the fossil record. Geneticists and Molecuolar Biologists dislike it because they know it is impossible.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 20. July 2006 22:10
Jehu: "That is an interesting admission of your a priori philosophical commitment to naturalistic materialism."
Scientific assertions must be verified by the scientific method which is based in methodological naturalism. If you want to make non-scientific statements, you will find no argument from me. However, if you invoke science, you must be prepared to provide the empirically verifiable evidence.
There is nothing in science which precludes the study of manufacture, artifice or design. However, pointing to a gap in knowledge, gasping at how complicated it seems, and invoking angels, is not justified within the scientific method.
Jehu: "Have the mechanisms been found?"
Common Descent is a valid scientific conclusion that can make predictions in a wide variety of scientific fields of study. There are many unanswered questions, however, in the new data coming from genomics. There will undoubtedly be many surprises.
Jehu: "So the theory of evolution doesn't propose that evolution happens in small populations? Here is what Stephen J. Gould says about PE. 'A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range.'"
Can. The hypothesis makes the claim that sometimes small evolutionary changes accumulate in small, isolated populations, which then overtake the parent population. There is nothing within the study of genetics which precludes this possibility. And there is ample direct observational evidence of genetic mutation leading to wide changes in everything from crop plants to tropical fish that justify the assertion that evolutionary change is more than sufficient to create novelty over long time scales.
There is some evidence in support of Punctuated Equilibrium, but it is not universally accepted, nor universally applicable.
Jehu: "PE was created because of the fossil record shows stasis with the sudden appearance of fully developed forms."
That is an exaggeration of the actual hypothesis. Rather, the assertion is that some species transitions are poorly represented, even though larger taxonomic groupings are well-represented. So it is only relatively minor changes that are poorly represented. The large-scale macroscopic changes are often well-represented.
But I note you keep quoting Gould. Let's see what Gould has to say: Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
And could it be you misinterpreted Patterson who said, "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."
--
You seem to have lost your thread. However, it can be said that evolution on the genetic level is not fully understood — if that is what you were trying to say.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 20. July 2006 23:39
Zack,
You said: quote:
There is nothing in science which precludes the study of manufacture, artifice or design. However, pointing to a gap in knowledge, gasping at how complicated it seems, and invoking angels, is not justified within the scientific method.
At what point would you be willing to admit that something cannot occur by chance and therefore must be the product of design or intelligence?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic