PvM posted Entry 1104 on June 7, 2005 10:56 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1102

Intelligent Design proponents who claim that they have a ‘theory’ often formulate it in the form of “evolutionary/Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain X”. When pressed for a scientific theory, it quickly becomes obvious that ID is scientifically vacuous.

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 65.

For Paul’s explanation see this link

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #34061

Posted by Ron Zeno on June 7, 2005 10:41 AM (e)

Doesn’t that quote end with, “But don’t quote me on that.”? ;)

Comment #34076

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 11:37 AM (e)

Funny. He makes this sound like the lack of any theory of ID is just an oversight, something they’ve been too busy to get around to. The real issue is that ID by its very nature will never have a theory. Not in any sense that a real scientist would recognize. Plugging in Jehovah to fill in bits you don’t like or can’t understand is their essential MO. No legitimate ‘theory’ can start out hardwired to always have the same punchline, no matter what evidence comes along.

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that, only to have him run away and change the subject? I’d say a couple days, max.

ID’s real problems will begin when/if they try to formulate a theory. They’ll become a much bigger, fatter, easier target. I think they know this. That’s why they prefer to do this hit-and-run thing of attacks on bogus flaws of evolutionary biology. It’s way easier, much less risky, and convinces gullible people just as much.

Comment #34080

Posted by Don on June 7, 2005 11:54 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #34094

Posted by john m. lynch on June 7, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Nelson attempts to defend himself at IDTF - from May 9th.

Comment #34114

Posted by steve on June 7, 2005 2:20 PM (e)

They have not even attempted to create an ID theory. They have attempted, twice, to create disproofs of evolution. The first was IC:

P1: Anything with IC can’t have evolved
P2: Living things have IC
C: Living things didn’t evolve

P2 may be correct depending on how you define IC, but P1 was shown to be wrong at least two ways.

attempt 2:

P1: Anything with CSI can’t have evolved
P2: Living things have CSI
C: Living things didn’t evolve

Again, P1 is totally wrong.

And that’s where ID stands. Two failed attempts to disprove ID. No theory to speak of.

Comment #34119

Posted by steve on June 7, 2005 2:32 PM (e)

‘disprove evolution’, obviously.

Comment #34140

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 4:47 PM (e)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism? (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution. We’re talking mechanisms here.)

Comment #34141

Posted by Henry J on June 7, 2005 4:47 PM (e)

Re “‘disprove evolution’, obviously.”

But which hypothesis? When a theory is composed of several related hypotheses, doesn’t a “disproof” have to be aimed at one of them in particular?

Henry

Comment #34142

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on June 7, 2005 4:50 PM (e)

One thing I am curious about; Paul says

and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity

What other notions? I’ve only ever seen these two. Does two made a handful?

Comment #34144

Posted by Russell on June 7, 2005 5:03 PM (e)

Blast wrote:

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do?

I venture to guess, virtually none. Because the tools we have now, and the additional knowledge that has accumulated over the past 150 years makes that a not very interesting question.

In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism? (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution. We’re talking mechanisms here.)

Do we predict that adaptations will occur in virtually any biological system as a result of mutation and selection? Does anyone doubt it?

Comment #34155

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 5:42 PM (e)

How long do you think it will be before some some IDer comes thru here, angrily denies that ID lacks a theory, then gets shown this quote by Lenny or someone like that

I’m not a regurgiquoter, unlike the IDers. I prefer my own words to anyone else’s, unlike the IDers.

To demonstate clearly, quickly and cleanly that IDers don’t have any scientific theory to offer, all that is necessary is to ASK THEM TO PRODUCE ONE.

They run away. Every time.

Comment #34156

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

Russell wrote:

Do we predict that adaptations will occur in virtually any biological system as a result of mutation and selection? Does anyone doubt it?

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”–which is generally accepted by IDers–rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing? In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise–or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Comment #34157

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

Darwin has been dead fro over 100 years. No oen CARES “what darwin would do”.

Are you going to tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, or aren’t you.

Or are IDers (like you) just lying to us when you claim to have one. Just like IDers (like you) are just lying to us when you claim that Id isn’t religious apologetics.

Comment #34158

Posted by Scott Davidson on June 7, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise

That’s a very good question. There’s a relatively recent book titled “Speciation” by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which would be a good palce to start. It talks about speciation and species concepts.
Maybe worth a look, ah?

Comment #34159

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”—which is generally accepted by IDers—rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing? In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise—or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Let’s ask Behe:

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism
Response to “Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore” by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000)

Michael J. Behe
Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”

From “Darwin’s Black Box”
Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (p. 5)

From “Darwin’s Black Box”
“I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.” (p.176)

“I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent.” in Reply to My Critics, Biology and Philosophy 16, p697, 2001.

Christianity Today, August 12th 2002
“A Nuclear Bomb” For Evolution?: Critics of Darwinism say skull’s discovery isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

by Todd Hertz

Behe said ID is “several levels of biology removed from the hominid versus chimp distinction.” The point of contention between evolution and intelligent design is whether design or chance guided human development?not how humans developed.

“Darwin’s claim to fame was not so much that he thought that organisms might have evolved from common ancestors,” Behe said. “Other people had put forward other theories but had always invoked guiding intelligence. His main point was that it might happen by chance.”

Darwin’s Black Box, Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller
(as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996])

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe’s “Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, “scientific creationists” should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had “much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1),” that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a “common ancestor.” In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

My goodness, Behe says that new species come from common descent – i.e., from evolution.

Do you disagree? Do you think he’s wrong about that?

What about abiogenesis:

drvr2hrdwr wrote:

Mr. Behe, may I get your comment or opinion on the theistic verses atheistic
nature of intelligent design theory?

It seems to me that ID proposes that all life requires an intelligence to
design it. So, if God did not design life on Earth, then some other intelligent
creatures (space aliens presumably) must have. These creatures would then
require an intelligence to their design, and so on for as many level of
regression as one my choose to suggest.

Since life could not have existed at the first instant of the Big Bang, there
must be a terminal point to this regression, requiring that the original
intelligent designer must have been God. Thus, ID theory is inherently
theistic.

Or would you and other ID proponents suggest that only life on Earth would
require an intelligent designer, but life elsewhere would not require an
intelligent designer? Would you suggest that a Godless abiogenesis could occur
elsewhere giving rise to extraterrestrial intelligence, which in turn designed
life on Earth, thus making ID theory potentially atheistic?

Neil Habermehl

From: Michael Behe
To: drvr2hrdwr
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Atheistic ID?

Hi, Mr. Habermehl. Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn’t require irreducibly
complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us,
as I speculated in Darwin’s Black Box (“Aliens and Time Travelers”, pp.
248-250). I don’t think that’s the case, but it isn’t logically impossible. Best
wishes.

Mike Behe

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

Do you disagree with Behe?

Comment #34161

Posted by Russell on June 7, 2005 6:06 PM (e)

BftP wrote:

Aren’t you talking about “microevolution”—which is generally accepted by IDers—rather than “macroevolution”, which is precisely the argument IDers are addressing?

I don’t believe Darwin made this distinction. Just as Lenny has been unable to extract from any IDer what the “Theory” of Intelligent Design actually is, I have been unable to extract any sensible division between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. So tell me: what is it that limits what you call “microevolution”? What prevents it, over billions of generations, from merging into “macroevolution”?

In other words, IDers concede the fact that adaptation occurs (I said as much in my post); but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise…

You asked about scientists in their labs. Personally, this lab scientist does not deal on a daily basis with new species arising. But he does deal with random mutation and selection. That’s my day-to-day “Darwinism”. What have the IDers proposed that could help me do my work?

Comment #34165

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 6:19 PM (e)

I’m not a regurgiquoter, unlike the IDers.  I prefer my own words to anyone else’s, unlike the IDers.

I know. What I mean, tho, is that you have a good skill at throwing IDer’s embarrassing earlier statements back into their faces. Such as, for example, in comment #34159. This is handy, since it’s quite powerful to show the ID crowd that they can’t even be consistent with their own nonsense.

Comment #34168

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 7, 2005 6:56 PM (e)

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves:  What would Darwin do?  In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?  (And I don’t mean “evolution”, because most IDers accept evolution.  We’re talking mechanisms here.)

I don’t know where Blast is coming from on this, but the fact that anyone should even ask this question says a lot about how creationists think about science. In their way of ‘doing’ religion, the infallibility of the founder of the religion is central to everything. So if they see other people ‘doing’ something other than Christianity, they assume those people must have some other messiah. So they think biologists worship Darwin the same way they worship Jesus. And when they see biologists NOT agreeing with Darwin on some point, they act very gleeful, as tho they’ve ‘caught’ science in some sort of heresy. They think they’ve ‘disproven’ evolution when they see that the theory of evolution hasn’t simply stood still since its inception. (Since religions aren’t supposed to change, according to them.)

The urban legend about Darwin ‘recanting’ (note the word choice) on his death bed seems to show this same syndrome. And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution. To them it’s the same as, for example, someone being a Southern Baptist and a Moslem at the same time.

This is a big part of why dialogues between scientists and creationists usually go nowhere. The two sides aren’t conceptualizing things the same at all. It’s like whole different parts of the brain are being used.

Comment #34174

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 7:17 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

Do you disagree with Behe?

Yes, and no. I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins; but, the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally. (why IC life here and not there?)

Russell wrote:

You asked about scientists in their labs. Personally, this lab scientist does not deal on a daily basis with new species arising. But he does deal with random mutation and selection. That’s my day-to-day “Darwinism”. What have the IDers proposed that could help me do my work?

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system. According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the “mutations” are a “built-in” part of the biological system. Since there would be “built-in limits” to where selection can take the organism (only so much available “stored information”), I think I would look for “where” this potential for mutations is “located”, and what kinds of “regulatory mechanisms” either enhance or suppress it (if at all). {N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest–if not the highest–mutation frequencies of all organisms)} If the “rate” of mutation could not be experimentally “shifted”, then I might look into whether there is a commonality between said mechanism and the mechanism of other organisms (sort of like a “box” gene) In other words, I think good science flows, one way or the other. That was my point from the beginning. If we use the metaphor of a “search engine” trying to get through the probability space of where biological organisms might go–or have gone–I think ID is a better one for “macroevolution”, and RMNS for “microevolution,” with ID being the more important of the two.

Comment #34177

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I’m a Christian and I believe in the “fact” of evolution; i.e., that the fossil record shows that complex life-forms steadily built up over time. Evolution is not a problem. I’m not a “young-earth” creationist. The Bible, it seems to me, doesn’t make those kinds of claim (although the “young-earthers” come up with some fascinating stuff at times). I simply think Darwin was “dead-wrong”; not just wrong, but “dead-wrong” when it comes to the “origin of species”. Had he written a book entitled, “Origin of Adaptations”, I’d be supporting him right now. So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”? I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School. Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution. [Have I made my point yet, or do I have to repeat it again and again?]

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given. No one knows whence it comes from though. And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates. (They’re still testing Einstein’s theory–if it is “absolutely” true, why bother testing it?) The same with evolution: it’s a fact; but how did it come about? No one knows; but there’s theories about how it did and how it might still operate. I have thoroughly examined the Modern Synthesis and it just doesn’t stand up to critical analysis. ID theory–which is more an “informational” theory than a “biological” theory, conforms with what biological systems give evidence of; i.e., it passes critical analysis. But is it a fully-formed “biological” theory? I think I’d have to agree with Paul Nelson, not quite yet. Nonetheless, I think it useful in pointing out to scientists who, generally, have not read up on the “history” of evolutionary theory (nor have they likely even read the Origin of Species) the weaknesses, and failures, of the theory they so strongly defend.

Comment #34186

Posted by H. Humbert on June 7, 2005 9:02 PM (e)

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given. No one knows whence it comes from though. And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates.

Just as there are no competing theories to Evolution to explain speciation.

Note: neither “goddidit” nor “Not Evolution” are theories.

Comment #34187

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 9:09 PM (e)

H. Humbert wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt. He was light-years ahead of his peers. He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution. [N.B. notice it’s called the “material” basis. Goldschmidt didn’t believe in metaphysical explanations.]

Comment #34189

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 9:13 PM (e)

H. Humbert wrote:

And it’s also why creationists can’t wrap their brains around a Christian believing in evolution.

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt. He was light-years ahead of his peers. He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution. [N.B. notice it’s called the “material” basis. Goldschmidt didn’t believe in metaphysical explanations.]

Comment #34192

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 9:29 PM (e)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

I hear this argument: well, gravity is a theory, does anyone NOT believe in gravity? Gravity is a fact; that is, it is a given. No one knows whence it comes from though. And there are competing “theories” as to how it operates.

H. Humbert wrote:

Just as there are no competing theories to Evolution to explain speciation.

Note: neither “goddidit” nor “Not Evolution” are theories.

Please excuse having the wrong quote in the two prior entries above. I think H. Humbert read my post too fast, just like I read his too fast. [The answer I give above (Material Basis of Evolution) still remains the same.] Apparently Humbert went from my saying there WERE competing theories to his reading that there WERE NO competing theories. ID might not represent a completely “material” explanation of evolution, but Richard Goldschmidt does just fine–and it makes sense.

Comment #34193

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 9:31 PM (e)

Heavens to Betsy, it seems as if Behe sees NO REASON, none AT ALL, why life could not, in principle, form by itslef “naturally through chance”, and that no god or gods were encessary to produce any “information” to make life appear.

Do you disagree with Behe?

Yes, and no. I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins; but, the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally. (why IC life here and not there?)

You once again miss the point (or are too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Here, let me remind you:

You:

as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

Behe:

Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn’t require irreducibly
complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us

You again:

I agree with Behe that the “logic” of ID, or of IC, doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of ET origins

That’s not what I asked. YOU asked “where does the ifnormation for life come from”? BEHE answers ““it arose naturally by chance”.

I’m not asking about “extraterrestrial origins. I am asking if you agree wiht Behe that life could have arisen WITHOUT ANY GOD OR DESIGNER and THEN DESIGNED US.

Do you agree with that, or don’t you.

Oh, and where, exactly, does Behe’s statement fit in with your blithering about “Darwinism is atheistic”. It sure as heck sounds to me as if your very own ID hero is stating, plainly and without any prevarication, that LIFE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY GOD OR DESIGNER.

That sounds awfully atheistic to ME. How does it sound to YOU?

Oh, and regarding:

the idea makes no sense to me either theologically or rationally.

and

I’m a Christian and I believe in the “fact” of evolution

I will ask once again: what is the source of your religious authority? What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night.

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so?

I look foward to your not answering any of my questions. Again.

Comment #34194

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 9:34 PM (e)

So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”? I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School. Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution.

Um, then what is it, exactly, that you are bitching about?

Comment #34195

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 9:37 PM (e)

I have thoroughly examined the Modern Synthesis

And who the hell are you, again …. . ?

Comment #34196

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2005 9:39 PM (e)

ID might not represent a completely “material” explanation of evolution, but Richard Goldschmidt does just fine—and it makes sense.

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong …. . ? After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

Comment #34200

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 7, 2005 10:02 PM (e)

Blastfromthepast wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system

Good, we’ve moved into worthless Creationist rhetoric now. Define ‘information’ please.

Comment #34202

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:15 PM (e)

'Rev Dr'Lenny Flank wrote:

And who the hell are you, again …. . ?

Why don’t you go first?

Comment #34205

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:24 PM (e)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

Good, we’ve moved into worthless Creationist rhetoric now. Define ‘information’ please.

So first you ask, how can ID help me in the lab. Then when I indicate a way in which it might, then you simply dismiss the whole thing: define ‘information’ please. (Do you really mean you don’t know what information is?)

This is a classic example of close-mindedness.

Comment #34206

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 10:27 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong …. . ? After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes. You might be in for an education.

Comment #34207

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 7, 2005 10:33 PM (e)

So first you ask, how can ID help me in the lab. Then when I indicate a way in which it might, then you simply dismiss the whole thing: define ‘information’ please. (Do you really mean you don’t know what information is?)

Again, define information because until then it is absolutely worthless. Please give a solid, TESTABLE definition of information or I’ll assume it’s just more creationist rhetoric.

In all the time I’ve debated creationists not ONE has ever defined ‘information’ except as some meaningless term that, when you prove demonstrate it they then ‘shift’ the goalposts all over the place. Until YOU provide a definition it’s just rhetoric.

This is a classic example of close-mindedness.

I think it’s just a classic example of calling bullshit when I see it :)

Comment #34219

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 7, 2005 11:47 PM (e)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

I think it’s just a classic example of calling bullshit when I see it :)

I stand by my statement. “when I see it.” That’s the problem: if you want to remain the final arbiter of all things, then you don’t have to entertain any ideas you don’t want to. As I said: “classic close-mindedness!”

If you want a definition of “information” you can check here for Shannon information: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Shannon_Information –which is not as powerful a definition of information as Dembski’s:http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Specified+complexity&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1 or in chapter six of Dembski’s Intelligent Design. But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

Panda’s Thumb has now officially become the equivalent of liberal AM Radio: a bunch of like-minded people who talk only to themselves in some kind of grandiose lovefest while fulminating and cutting off anyone who differs with them. And we all know the fate of Liberal AM Radio!

Comment #34222

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 8, 2005 12:16 AM (e)

That’s the problem: if you want to remain the final arbiter of all things, then you don’t have to entertain any ideas you don’t want to. As I said: “classic close-mindedness!”

Nope and I asked YOU to define “information”. You’re using the pointless terms you define them.

information as Dembski’s:http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey … or in chapter six of Dembski’s Intelligent Design. But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

The informational argument there however has already been shown to not really stand up to any real scrutiny.

It’s also rather irrelevant because you specified (for lack of a better word)

themselves cannot add “information” to the system

so I asked you to ‘define’ information. You see, neither of those ‘definitions’ you have provided answers at all what you meant here. I can show numerous cases where ‘information’ or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors. Again, you are asking for the ADDITION of new information that neither of the theories you quote attempt to answer in this context (just another demonstration of the uselessness of ID).

Again, specify ‘information’, as in the ACTUAL unit of information. Not blither blather as ‘aaaaaa’ or ‘blahjehaj’ or whatever. What the actual, testable experimentally unit of information is.

Care to show me?

But, of course, why consult any of this since, obviously, you have all the answers.

I don’t, that is why I am asking you. Why you keep running around and avoiding the question is quite odd.

Comment #34224

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on June 8, 2005 12:47 AM (e)

Whoever wrote:

Had he written a book entitled, “Origin of Adaptations”, I’d be supporting him right now. So, tell me, why this urge on your part to dismissively categorize me as a “creationist”, and assume that my faith is somehow shaken by the idea of “evolution”? I haven’t had problems with the “fact” of evolution since High School. Put it another way: I’ve NEVER had problems with the “fact” of evolution. [Have I made my point yet, or do I have to repeat it again and again?]

Ah, but the (your) problem is, how then, did the species observed today come to be? And how did all extinct species come to be..? Quoth Behe: “In a puff of smoke..?” Eeeh? Sounds pretty much creationist to me. Look what you´re saying again:

but the real crux of the issue is how do new species arise—or, as the IDers would say, where does this additional “information” come from?

There are millions, quite possibly billions of species altogether, to account for by any scientific theory. How has the (unspecified) Intelligent Designer created (sic!) each and every one of these different species, according to the theory of ID? Hmmmm..? Anyone? I thought so. And while you´re (not) at it, please define “species” in as many relevant ways you may have to, to accomodate sexually/non-sexually reproducing organisms, eukaryotes/prokaryotes, virii etc. Then repeat and rinse.

And by the way, you somehow “forgot” to ask the (obvious) question about body plans. Lost your edge?

Comment #34225

Posted by Air Bear on June 8, 2005 12:48 AM (e)

Hey.

BFTP wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system. According to this logic then, the conclusion to be reached is that the “mutations” are a “built-in” part of the biological system. Since there would be “built-in limits” to where selection can take the organism (only so much available “stored information”), I think I would look for “where” this potential for mutations is “located”, and what kinds of “regulatory mechanisms” either enhance or suppress it (if at all).

and

I highly recommend you read the Material Basis of Evolution by Richard Goldschmidt. He was light-years ahead of his peers. He presents a highly intelligent (and dare say, probable) theory of evolution.

Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like the Directed Evolutionary Hypothesis of our dear departed friend from the University of Vermont who was always recommending Goldschmidt? Maybe he’s come back as a “Blast from the Past”. If it’s him, he’s certainly toned down

Comment #34227

Posted by Air Bear on June 8, 2005 12:58 AM (e)

While I wasn’t looking, BFTP wrote:

Panda’s Thumb has now officially become the equivalent of liberal AM Radio: a bunch of like-minded people who talk only to themselves in some kind of grandiose lovefest while fulminating and cutting off anyone who differs with them. And we all know the fate of Liberal AM Radio!

It’s him! If BFTP ever runs for Governor of Vermont, I’ll be sure and send in my unofficial absentee ballot.

How do you like them apples?

Comment #34228

Posted by Red Right Hand on June 8, 2005 1:58 AM (e)

“How do you like them apples?”

Ha! You may be right!

Is that you John?

The “Blast From The Past” name raised my suspicions of a disguised troll as well, but when he started mumbling about “Shannon information” I was leaning toward Jerry (aka DonkeyKong)

Comment #34243

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on June 8, 2005 7:10 AM (e)

Nah, ny money is on this particular instance of “NavyDavisonKong” (or whoever) not being our friend Salty. Or, alternatively, someone upped his…you know.

And hey, BFTP, where did you run anyway? There are about 500 questions for you to answer here, you know, scientific ones. Don´t be shy.

Comment #34249

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 7:20 AM (e)

And who the hell are you, again …. . ?

Why don’t you go first?

Why don’t you answer my goddamn questions?

Comment #34250

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 8, 2005 7:22 AM (e)

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong …. . ? After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes. You might be in for an education.

I notice you didn’t asnwer my question. I;ll ask again:

Goldschmidt;s ideas were based on evolution.

So how do any of them make evolution wrong, or help ID “theory” in any way, shape, or form?

It’s a simple question. Why won;t you answer it?

Comment #34292

Posted by PvM on June 8, 2005 11:16 AM (e)

Paul Nelson defends his quote

Only with the publication of books such as Darwin’s Black Box (1996) or The Design Inference (1998) do hints of a positive theory of design begin to emerge.

Too bad that Paul provides no examples since neither DBB nor TDI present a positive theory of design. DBB relies argues that there exist irreducibly complex systems in nature which cannot be explained by direct Darwinian processes. Nothing in DBB presents a positive scientific theory for ID. The leap from not explained by direct Darwinian processes, to ‘intelligently designed’ is an argument from ignorance, an argument based on faith not science. TDI tries to make the argument of DBB more rigorous but fails in many areas, unable to avoid the argument from ignorance or God of the Gaps argument.
In other words, theer is no positive theory of design, and if Paul believes that DBB or TDI have contributed to even a hint of positive theory of design then let him present his arguments. Paul seems to confuse the refutations of IC and CSI as evidence of them being scientific hypothesis, conflating conveniently the scientific arguments versus the theological ad hoc arguments.

Comment #34293

Posted by bcpmoon on June 8, 2005 11:25 AM (e)

BTFP wrote:

How many scientists, when they’re in their labs, say to themselves: What would Darwin do? In other words, on a practical level, just how powerful a theory is Darwinism?

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?
This connotation was also noticed in post #34168, and I wonder if those people really close their eyes and, to quote Behe, say “Poof”…
No wonder that no results are forthcoming…

Comment #34294

Posted by Russell on June 8, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'b'

Comment #34300

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 8, 2005 12:55 PM (e)

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?

Um… do ID-people have labs?

What would they even do in them?

Comment #34305

Posted by SEF on June 8, 2005 1:16 PM (e)

Do you mean that the ID-people currently working in their labs are constantly mumbling “What would Jesus do?”?

If I believed they genuinely thought much at all, let alone about that in particular, it would say a lot about those creationists’ version of Jesus if they had decided he would think it a good idea to lie about the intent of their mission (ie ID wedge), to deny aspects of reality, to misrepresent scientists’ work, to lie about their own work or lack of it, to lie, bully and cheat their way into museums, journals and PhDs etc etc.

Comment #34327

Posted by John Wendt on June 8, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

From BFTP:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system

Comparison of genomes gives patterns that seem best explained by the hypothesis that various genes have at some point been duplicated in the transcription process. Indeed, in some cases it seems that whole genomes have been duplicated. If the original gene can supply the required protein, then the duplicate gene is free to mutate. This is new information.

That’s simpler than the biological reality, in which change in control mechanisms is more important to evolution than simple mutation. And there’s no selection at this level of analysis, although a new mutation may change the organisms “fitness” for good or ill. The only point here is that “ID ‘logic’” is not necessarily a very good guide to biological thinking.

Comment #34360

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on June 8, 2005 9:31 PM (e)

Nelson writes: “we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet…”

Wow. Where does he go for trick or treat…?

Comment #34361

Posted by steve on June 8, 2005 9:44 PM (e)

When I go to that link, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?tb_id=325 , I get a blank page.

Comment #34369

Posted by Steven Laskoske on June 8, 2005 10:32 PM (e)

If I believed they genuinely thought much at all, let alone about that in particular, it would say a lot about those creationists’ version of Jesus if they had decided he would think it a good idea to lie about the intent of their mission (ie ID wedge), to deny aspects of reality, to misrepresent scientists’ work, to lie about their own work or lack of it, to lie, bully and cheat their way into museums, journals and PhDs etc etc.

Of course, if they DID actually ask “What Would Jesus Do?” then they might actually stop trying to push ID into the schools. After all, the chasing out the moneychangers and merchants from the temple and the “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” portion of the Bible very clearly show that Jesus was all for separation of church and state.

Heck, when Peter (upon whom was built the church) tried to push the idea of getting people to respect Jesus, all he got from Jesus was a “Get thee behind me, Satan!” and a complaint that he was thinking of kingdoms of men instead of the Kingdom of God.

If we assume the IDers are right, then they might have a pretty tough time on Judgement Day…

Comment #34383

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 1:04 AM (e)

BftP wrote:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.

To refute this:

Russell wrote:

Genetic material is known to occasionally, just randomly, get duplicated within a genome - all the way from one nucleotide up to the entire genome. That’s new information. It can be selected. These are facts. This is not a question of opinion.

It’s amazing how easily and quickly a dismissive tone is taken by those who post here. Look at the obvious non sequitor in the above quote: so “two” copies (oops–more quotes; how awful) of the same gene, or two copies of the same genome is “new information”? So, if I have two copies of Encyclopedia Britannica I have “more” information than if I have one copy? Do you see how quickly you arrogate?

At least in the 18th century we didn’t make these kinds of mistakes in logic.

Comment #34386

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 1:45 AM (e)

BftP wrote:

{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria (which have one of the highest—if not the highest—mutation frequencies of all organisms)}

Russell wrote:

N.B. Total “B.S.”
(Of course, you can prove me wrong by offering a citation.)

But it’s so easy to prove you wrong:
N.B. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.htm

When you’re stuck in the 18th century, there’s a lot of catching up to do, so you read journals and such as they come out.

Comment #34388

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:01 AM (e)

Russell wrote:

Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

Darwinists love tautolgies. What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume. (I can take you through this a step at a time if the “logic” overwhelms you.) You don’t “know” any such thing as “microevolution” leads to “macroevolution.” If that was so obvious and well-documented, then no one would be questioning Darwinian theory.
[We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing.]

I see no reason to respond to the other parts of your post since you make it quite evident that you’re unwilling to think “outside of the Darwinian Black Box.” Your attitude makes discussion pointless.

Comment #34389

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:15 AM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Um, how does Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” idea make evolution wrong …. . ? After all, “hopeful monster” is a theory of … well … evolution.

So what the heck are you yammering about?

BftP wrote:

Instead of displaying your ignorance, why don’t you read the book and then read my quotes. You might be in for an education.

Lenny wrote:

I notice you didn’t asnwer my question. I;ll ask again:

Goldschmidt;s ideas were based on evolution.

So how do any of them make evolution wrong, or help ID “theory” in any way, shape, or form?

It’s a simple question. Why won;t you answer it?

Dr Lenny: Goldschmidt readily admits “microevolution”–it’s likely he INVENTED the distinction between it and “macroevolution.” The entire book is an argument that the kinds of mutations that characterize “micro” from “macro” are entirely disparate. He introduces the idea of a “systemic mutation”, which is, basically, a changing around of chromosomal “patterns”. He observes the obvious: the phylogenetic difference between males and females in higher animals is generally at the level of “macroevolution”; and, of course, the difference between them is strictly chromosomal.

So your assertion that “it’s evolution”, etc., etc., is pointless given Goldschmidt evidence and analysis.

In addition, Goldschmidt was way ahead of his contempories in thought, already seeing the chromosomes as templates for protein formation (he doesn’t use that language, but the idea lays somewhat implicit within them). Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material–it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear…..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Comment #34390

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:25 AM (e)

John Wendt wrote:

Comparison of genomes gives patterns that seem best explained by the hypothesis that various genes have at some point been duplicated in the transcription process. Indeed, in some cases it seems that whole genomes have been duplicated. If the original gene can supply the required protein, then the duplicate gene is free to mutate. This is new information.

But, John, is it “information” or is it just gibberish? In other words, is all that you end up with no more than a slightly garbled protein. Kimura’s Neutral Theory arose because of the extraordinary amount of protein isomers that gel electrophoresis turned up in the 60’s and 70’s. The only way to explain the vast number of isomers is to interpret them as being “neutral” relative to selection. If, indeed, new “information” is added via this mechanism, wonderful. But I think it’s simply “plausible”, and not “probable.” Again, if this mechanism can be shown to operate as you suggest, fine, then I’ll be happy to rethink my position.

Comment #34391

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 2:26 AM (e)

Says BlastFromThe Past:

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing

That’s your problem. The only interesting question is whether they are right. The close-minded, like you, will never be convinced of anything.

Comment #34392

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:44 AM (e)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

I can show numerous cases where ‘information’ or new functions, alterations or similar have been made to proteins or systems, nylonase genes for an example or numerous pathogenicity factors.

I think that the information contained in chromosomes/DNA is on a parallel with binary code. The latest edition of The Scientist is dedicated to this very theme. My intuition is that what have been commonly called “genes”, are nothing more than “code” for proteins. With the rise in understanding of microRNAs, it becomes clear that chromosomal code interacts with itself, much like a computer program, using binary code, is designed to interact with the various “parts” of the computer and with the data being processed.

Now, getting to your quote above, isn’t it entirely possible that the “new function” you’re talking about is no more than the un-silencing of part of the code for the particular protein involved. Thus, there’s no NEW information; just the loss of suppression of information.

Here is an ID prediction: as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

Comment #34393

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:52 AM (e)

BftP wrote:

We all know about Ernst Mayr and the various websites: but again, not convincing.

PaulP wrote:

That’s your problem. The only interesting question is whether they are right. The close-minded, like you, will never be convinced of anything.

Yes, Paul, maybe your right. I’m close-minded. On the other hand, when Morgan worked with his flies and brought about who knows how many mutations, did he end up with anything other than a fly? Even Thomas Huxley, in the 1890’s, said that the fact that no known example of transpeciation had been observed was a knock on Darwin’s theory–this from Darwin’s bulldog. Huxley also seriously differed with Darwin over “hopeful monsters”: he was in favor of this idea, and Darwin opposed. All of the 28 or 29 examples of “transpeciation” are either trivial or involve ( and this is true of most of them) chromosomal changes. Well, let’s face it, the Modern Synthesis–and I’m talking here of its mathematical basis–does not deal with chromosomal rearrangements, but, instead, with “point mutations.” So, where does that leave us? Now, Paul, how open-minded are you?

Comment #34394

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 2:58 AM (e)

Nelson writes: “we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet … “

Well, Galileo and Newton and Einstein all started with rather simple intuitions. But in the end, they proved very powerful. Having said that, I think, however, that in short-term ID will be mildly helpful; but that in the long-term it will not; simply because I think science is moving so quickly forward that ID will simply become subsumed into the analysis of genomes that has already begun. And, of course, Darwinism will quickly become entirely discredited at the transpeciation level.

Comment #34395

Posted by 386sx on June 9, 2005 3:10 AM (e)

And, of course, Darwinism will quickly become entirely discredited at the transpeciation level.

More predictions. Boy you sure do got a lot of predictions. That, and a whole lot of “Darwins.” Dawrin this, and Darwin that…

Comment #34396

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 3:26 AM (e)

BlastFromThePast writes:

Even Thomas Huxley, in the 1890’s, said that the fact that no known example of transpeciation had been observed was a knock on Darwin’s theory

From the fossil record we can deduce that there are now life forms that did not exist in the distant past. I wonder how they arose?

Darwin wrote that he did not know the mechanism of inheritance. They were honest, not like the “wedge strategy” people who talk about a non-existent “controversy”.

Comment #34397

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 4:05 AM (e)

Scott Davidson wrote:

There’s a relatively recent book titled “Speciation” by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, which would be a good palce to start. It talks about speciation and species concepts.
Maybe worth a look, ah?

I will give it a look and try to be as open-minded as I can.

Here’s what I found in the Introduction:
(p. 4) As the Modern Synthesis progressed, evolutionary geneticists grew increasingly obsessed with measuring and explaining genetic variation within species (Lewontin 1974). In retrospect, this shift in emphasis was unfortunate in at least one way: understanding speciation, it turns out, may not depend critically on how genetic variation is maintained.

As a result, more work on speciation has been performed over the last two decades than over the entire period from 1859 to 1980. This latest phase has involved reexamining nearly every conclusion about speciation reached during the Modern Synthesis. Debate about species concepts—virtually quashed by Mayr’s forceful arguments in Animal Species and Evolution—was revived as biologists not only introduced dozens of new concepts, but even questioned whether species exist. Geneticists who accepted the importance of reproductive isolating barriers performed more rigorous genetic analyses of these barriers…. (p.5) It thus seemed clear that natural and sexual selection are the main engines of speciation. But given our almost complete ignorance about how these forms of selection give rise to new species, this conclusion was based more on intuition than on data.

(p.6) These links have been strengthened by recent molecular analysis showing that natural selection was almost certainly involved in genetic changes that cause reproductive isolation”

“Finally, if any single difficulty has impeded progress in this field, it is a preoccupation with vague and untestable ideas. There as been, for example, nearly endless discussion of species concepts.”

“In our view, recent progress in speciation largely reflects a shift from a fascination with nebulous and untestable ideas to empirically tractable ones. It is this shift, we believe, that has allowed the field to attain scientific maturity.”

“…understanding speciation, it turns out, may not depend critically on how genetic variation is maintained….It thus seemed clear that natural and sexual selection are the main engines of speciation….But given our almost complete ignorance about how these forms of selection give rise to new species, this conclusion was based more on intuition than on data.” What devastating admissions. Having read the introduction, I don’t see what it is I’m going to learn since they almost admit that they don’t know what the mechanism for speciation is. So, I guess I’ll pass until they can marshal more information–like “what is a species.” Are you sure you want to recommend this book to others?

Let me add that this introduction only reinforces my sense that since the time of Goldschmidt’s seminal work on evolution, biology has wasted its time. Sixty years down the tubes. What a shame.

Comment #34398

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 4:11 AM (e)

PaulP wrote:

From the fossil record we can deduce that there are now life forms that did not exist in the distant past. I wonder how they arose?

Much time would be saved if those who want to support Darwin would stop the silly allegations that anyone who favors ID is a creationist–this is simply setting up a straw man. Yes, the fossil record supports the idea of common descent–no one is arguing that. Yes, natural selection can be seen operating in nature: we call it adaptation. No one is arguing that either. So, let’s get rid of the straw men, and argue the merits of the neo-Darwinian explanation of speciation. (You might want to look at my last post.)

Comment #34400

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 5:42 AM (e)

BlastFromThePast:

Can you define transpeciation from me please?

Comment #34401

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 9, 2005 6:03 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #34402

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 6:59 AM (e)

Darwinists love tautolgies.

How dreadful.

What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is?

Oh, that’s right – you DIDN’T say, did you …. .

Comment #34403

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 7:01 AM (e)

Much time would be saved if those who want to support Darwin would stop the silly allegations that anyone who favors ID is a creationist—this is simply setting up a straw man.

How many, again, of the 23 supporters of ID who testified in Kansas were creationists …. ?

How many, again, argument have been made by IDers that weren’t made 20 years ago by ICR’s minions?

Comment #34404

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 7:05 AM (e)

Dr Lenny: Goldschmidt readily admits “microevolution”—it’s likely he INVENTED the distinction between it and “macroevolution.” The entire book is an argument that the kinds of mutations that characterize “micro” from “macro” are entirely disparate. He introduces the idea of a “systemic mutation”, which is, basically, a changing around of chromosomal “patterns”. He observes the obvious: the phylogenetic difference between males and females in higher animals is generally at the level of “macroevolution”; and, of course, the difference between them is strictly chromosomal.

So your assertion that “it’s evolution”, etc., etc., is pointless given Goldschmidt evidence and analysis.

It IS evolution. Common descent. Descent with modification.

Goldschmidt also did NOT argue that ALL speciaitons are the result of such macromutations. And NONE of this supports ID in any wayh shape or form.

So I’m still not sure what it is that you are bitching about.

By the way, there have been well over 100 examples of observed macroevolution events (speciations) in the past fiew decades. Can you cite one of them that followed Goldschmidt’s hypothesis? Just one will do.

Comment #34405

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 7:08 AM (e)

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same

Huh? Salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about.

Huh? Where can we find “information for making clorophyll” anywhere in the human genome?

You’re blithering again.

Comment #34406

Posted by GCT on June 9, 2005 7:37 AM (e)

BftP wrote:

Here is an ID prediction: as the human (and other) genome becomes more amenable to analysis, then we will find that huge amounts of information is stored in the genome, common to most species, but that through such physical rearrangements (like recombination/insertions/translocation, etc) and through different forms of microRNA control, different phenotypes result.

Please explain how this prediction was derived from ID? It doesn’t seem to follow the precept that, “Life is the result of an intelligent design.” Also, please give your assumptions.

Comment #34408

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 7:56 AM (e)

blast wrote:

But it’s so easy to prove you wrong:
N.B. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.ht …

Oh, I see. How embarrassing for me. The article is titled:

To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists

Did you get around to actually reading the article, Blast? No, I didn’t think so. Here let me help you. First of all, you’ll notice the article was a summary, for the general public, of primary scientific literature. (Did you check into that? No, I don’t suppose so.) They blocked one enzyme (LexA) involved in one specialized DNA recombination pathway. Now let’s see how Blast characterizes that finding:

{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria

Now, if you don’t detect the substantial quantities of egg on your face, there is no help for you.
Let’s take a look at the next bit of nonsense:

It’s amazing how easily and quickly a dismissive tone is taken by those who post here. Look at the obvious non sequitor in the above quote [in which it is pointed out that duplicated genetic material constitutes new information]: so “two” copies … of the same gene, or two copies of the same genome is “new information”? So, if I have two copies of Encyclopedia Britannica I have “more” information than if I have one copy? Do you see how quickly you arrogate?

Do you see how quickly you lose focus? Here. Let’s recap. Your assertion was:

It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.

Fact 1 - uncontested by anybody - Additional genetic material occasionally, just randomly, comes into being by various copying glitches.
Fact 2 - uncontested by anybody - Genetic material is subject to molding by selection (what evophobes like to call “microevolution”)
Put Fact 1 and Fact 2 together: what do you think? Has new information been added to the system?

Now how about this:

Russell wrote:
Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

Darwinists love tautolgies. What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume…. You don’t “know” any such thing as “microevolution” leads to “macroevolution.”

OK, now hold it right there. Where is the tautology? What am I assuming to be true? I’m asking you a question, which you seem intent on dodging:
What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?

Now unless you can address that question, if I might just borrow your words:

I see no reason to respond to the other parts of your post since you make it quite evident that you’re unwilling to think […] Your attitude makes discussion pointless.

Comment #34412

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 8:25 AM (e)

Can nayone else here tell me what BlastFromThePast means by transpeciation?

Comment #34418

Posted by Flint on June 9, 2005 9:06 AM (e)

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The claim under discussion seems to be that all of the information necessary to produce every species that ever has existed or ever will exist, was present in the very first DNA, and exists today in the DNA of every living creature. Unstated (at least I haven’t seen it stated) is the presumption that this original omniplastic DNA didn’t itself evolve, but was created de novo by supernatural means.

Now, we present in evidence strong indications of a process by which new information has been generated: genes, indeed entire genomes, sometimes duplicate themselves during imperfect reproduction. The copies, not serving any immediate functional purpose, can mutate within some wide range without harming the organism, and are thus not selected away. Eventually, a mutation is of clear benefit to an organism, after which it is selected for. Importantly, this benefit derives from a new function never before possessed by any organism. There doesn’t seem to be any debate that this happens.

Instead, the debate seems to be whether the information necessary to produce this new function was always present and inherent in the DNA that got duplicated; that as a result of not being selected away to preserve one useful function, the new copy’s capability to produce this new function was no longer being suppressed, and was permitted to emerge.

It seems to me that if this is the case, it would indeed lead to the prediction that if our abilities were comprehensive enough, we would necessarily discover all of these incipient capabilities embedded in the DNA of every organism. Extrapolating on this, presumably we could not only recreate every creature now extinct, but every possible organism. As an analogy, every organism’s DNA contains a complete dictionary and grammar of the biological language, from which we could in principle compose every grammatically possible novel. Which novels selection writes remains entirely contingent, of course.

To show otherwise, it would be necessary to demonstrate that some mutation or transcription error or cosmic ray or whatever was the direct cause of a change to the DNA to produce a pattern that never before occurred, and that the resulting change was required for some new characteristic to evolve. In other words, that the necessary information simply did not exist in the DNA prior to the event that caused the change.

Obviously, I’m not a biologist. Is this more or less what’s being discussed here?

Comment #34420

Posted by PaulP on June 9, 2005 9:33 AM (e)

Flint:

Using BlastFromThePast’s thinking, I cannot see where new species arose. If he accepts the fossil record, then there are species existing today that did not in the past, so the question is where they arose from. He made a big deal of questioning the Modern Synthesis’s explanation but I can’t see his alternative.

(And on a side point I note that Darwin did not know about genes and his theory is unaffected by any discoveries about them. He just needs some mechanism to permit fitness to be inherited and some mechanism or mechanisms to permit mutations. )

Comment #34423

Posted by Flint on June 9, 2005 9:45 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #34424

Posted by Jim Wynne on June 9, 2005 9:56 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #34426

Posted by Flint on June 9, 2005 10:13 AM (e)

Jim Wynne:

The same argument could be made for ANY prediction that something will be found, or that some result can be produced. I’m not willing to go quite that far, at least not in practice. It should be possible to show that some pattern of DNA pairs is simply not there before, and is there after, some “information-augmenting” event.

Let’s say I claim there’s an elephant in the closet. So we look, and the closet is empty. Have we falsified my claim? I guess it depends on what standard of evidence is being applied.

Comment #34428

Posted by steve on June 9, 2005 10:21 AM (e)

Yes, micro, macro, front-loading elephants, this is all very on topic. Speaking of which, can anyone get to that link in the post http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?tb_id=325 ?

Comment #34429

Posted by Jim Wynne on June 9, 2005 10:24 AM (e)

Flint wrote:

The same argument could be made for ANY prediction that something will be found, or that some result can be produced. I’m not willing to go quite that far, at least not in practice. It should be possible to show that some pattern of DNA pairs is simply not there before, and is there after, some “information-augmenting” event.

Let’s say I claim there’s an elephant in the closet. So we look, and the closet is empty. Have we falsified my claim? I guess it depends on what standard of evidence is being applied.

I’m not exactly disagreeing with you; if ID explcitly says we should expect to find x and x isn’t there, then at least that part of the argument has been falsified. I think the “explicitly” part is a problem, and the inherent problem of supernatural intervention is that it allows for an infinite number of goalpost moves, thus an argument without end.

Comment #34435

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 11:08 AM (e)

steve wrote:

Yes, micro, macro, front-loading elephants, this is all very on topic

With all due respect, the topic of this thread is the vacuity of ID “theory”, as highlighted by Paul Nelson’s remarks. For me, the very essence of the vacuity of ID”T” is the failure to point to some mechanism that demarcates, in any meaningful way, the microevolution that the creationists acknowledge and macroevolution that they claim is impossible. So, please, don’t be giving creationists the “off-topic” excuse for not answering that question.

Comment #34464

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 2:28 PM (e)

can anyone get to that link in the post http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/htsrv/trackback.php?t … ?

Where is that link from? (I get just a blank page, too. But I don’t know what I’m expecting to get).

Comment #34469

Posted by IgnoranceIsBliss on June 9, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

So has blast gone from “it’s still just a dog” and “they’re still bacteria” to “it’s still DNA”? Is that ID?

Comment #34483

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 4:50 PM (e)

FLint wrote:

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The claim under discussion seems to be that all of the information necessary to produce every species that ever has existed or ever will exist, was present in the very first DNA, and exists today in the DNA of every living creature. Unstated (at least I haven’t seen it stated) is the presumption that this original omniplastic DNA didn’t itself evolve, but was created de novo by supernatural means.

That’s Goldschmidt’s speculation. Why don’t you read his book, The Material Basis of Evolution?

Comment #34484

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 4:54 PM (e)

PaulP wrote:

Using BlastFromThePast’s thinking, I cannot see where new species arose. If he accepts the fossil record, then there are species existing today that did not in the past, so the question is where they arose from. He made a big deal of questioning the Modern Synthesis’s explanation but I can’t see his alternative.

Paul, I don’t know that anyone really knows how new species come about. Look at my post about the new book Speciation. Goldschmidt–who was probably the finest biologist of his time–suspected that it had to do with re-arragements of chromomes which he called “systemic mutations.” He was scorned at the time. Now 65 years later, there is precious little evidence of “speciation” events, and, as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging.

Comment #34489

Posted by SEF on June 9, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging

Would that be Comment #34389? If so, it isn’t very coherent.

Saying “the phylogenetic difference between males and females” seems to mean you think males and females are different species from which sub-branches of different animals descend - especially since you label it “macroevolution” on Goldschmidt’s behalf. That’s generally considered to be the wrong way round - except perhaps during domestic disputes, when even coming from the same planet implies too much similarity.

By “in higher animals”, I suspect you mean the animals most closely related to humans (including humans of course). Being of the same descended lineage, it isn’t exactly surprising that their sex differentiation is similar. Other animals and plants etc are equally evolved but have different strategies other than non-matching chromosomes.

The phrase “changing around of chromosomal “patterns”” is entirely too vague though. It could refer to any amount of gene translocation, repetition, splitting or joining. Some repeats don’t necessarily result in speciation, eg between breeds of dog. Duplications splits and joins don’t always result in speciation or complete sterility either.

I think there’s a lot of evidence for speciation because it’s happened several times during my life-time! Whereas creationist fundamentalists say it shouldn’t happen at all and geological time indicates it might not happen while any particular individual is able to watch.

Comment #34493

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 5:57 PM (e)

Paul, I don’t know that anyone really knows how new species come about. Look at my post about the new book Speciation. Goldschmidt—who was probably the finest biologist of his time—suspected that it had to do with re-arragements of chromomes which he called “systemic mutations.” He was scorned at the time. Now 65 years later, there is precious little evidence of “speciation” events, and, as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging.

And that has what, exactly, to do with whether or not life was designed …. ?

Comment #34494

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 6:03 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #34495

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 6:06 PM (e)

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear …..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont’ skip any steps.

I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as “transpeciation” and “chromosomal changes”.

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

I’ve been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here’s your chance. Right in front of the whole world.

The floor is all yours.

Comment #34496

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 6:09 PM (e)

That’s Goldschmidt’s speculation.

No it’s not.

Why don’t you read his book, The Material Basis of Evolution?

Does it explain why humans don’t have the genes for chlorophyll?

Can YOU explain that?

Comment #34498

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 6:11 PM (e)

Goldschmidt—who was probably the finest biologist of his time—suspected that it had to do with re-arragements of chromomes which he called “systemic mutations.” He was scorned at the time. Now 65 years later, there is precious little evidence of “speciation” events, and, as I pointed out in a post, most of them have to do with chromosomal re-arranging.

So you are of the opinion that chromosome doubling, transpositions, chromosomal fusions, broken chromosomes, or polyploidy are … somehow a problem for evolution and support for ID …. ?

How, exactly. Evolutionary biologists have been discussing these things for thirty years now.

Do try and keep up.

Comment #34500

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 6:16 PM (e)

Russell wrote:

Oh, I see. How embarrassing for me. The article is titled:
To Stop Evolution: New Way Of Fighting Antibiotic Resistance Demonstrated By Scripps Scientists

Yes, there’s plenty reason for embarrassment if you would trouble yourself to read the title of the actual experiment—which is found at the end of the article. Their paper is: “Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance” by Ryan T. Cirz, Jodie K. Chin, David R. Andes, Valöée de Crï’-Lagard, William A. Craig, and Floyd E. Romesberg appears in the June, 2005 issue of the journal PloS Biology. See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176

Russell wrote:

Did you get around to actually reading the article, Blast? No, I didn’t think so. Here let me help you. First of all, you’ll notice the article was a summary, for the general public, of primary scientific literature. (Did you check into that? No, I don’t suppose so.)

Russell, do you need help finding yourself to the end of an article? (See above)

Russell wrote:

They blocked one enzyme (LexA) involved in one specialized DNA recombination pathway. Now let’s see how Blast characterizes that finding:
{N.B. Scientist’s have just reported being able to “stop” mutations from occurring in bacteria

Did you miss this sentence in the article? “A few years ago, when he was first starting to think about this, Romesberg encountered a paper in a scientific journal that discussed certain genes that “make mutations,” as he put it. When these genes are deleted from cells, the cells lose their ability to mutate, even when subjected to massive amounts of ultraviolet light.” Or this one? “Halting evolution is exactly what Romesberg and his colleagues demonstrated in their latest PloS paper.” Isn’t bacterial mutation one of the examples of “speciation” that is always bandied about when Darwinists want to “prove” RMNS really works?

Russell wrote:

Do you see how quickly you lose focus? Here. Let’s recap. Your assertion was:
It seems to me that ID “logic” would suggest that “mutations” and “selection” in, and of, themselves cannot add “information” to the system.
Fact 1 - uncontested by anybody - Additional genetic material occasionally, just randomly, comes into being by various copying glitches.
Fact 2 - uncontested by anybody - Genetic material is subject to molding by selection (what evophobes like to call “microevolution”)
Put Fact 1 and Fact 2 together: what do you think? Has new information been added to the system?

Let’s see Russell: Fact 1 – uncontested by anybody – Additional genetic material occasionally, just randomly, come into being by various copying glitches. So, if my Encyclopedia Brittanica is reprinted, and they have problems printing—copying errors per your analogy—you say I end up with “more” information—just randomly. Do you really want to stick with that “fact”? With the implausibility of Fact 1 demonstrated, you’re syllogism now falls apart. Humpty Dumpty had a big fall. Where’s the egg now?

Russell wrote:

Knowing, as we do, the considerable change that can result from “microevolution” even during the infinitesimal length of time humans have been observing it, what imposes an upper limit on that, preventing “microevolution” from blending into “macroevolution” over billions of generations?

BftP wrote:

Darwinists love tautolgies. What you assume to be true, you present as proof for what you assume …. You don’t “know” any such thing as “microevolution” leads to “macroevolution.”

Russell wrote:

OK, now hold it right there. Where is the tautology? What am I assuming to be true? I’m asking you a question, which you seem intent on dodging:
What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?

If I am “intent on dodging” your question, then that means you are presuming you are right in saying that ‘microevolution’, projected out over long periods of time, brings about ‘macroevolution.’ But that is assuming that which needs to be demonstrated. Or, as they say, it’s “begging the question.” If you, Russell, are not intent on “begging the question”, then the proper question would be: Is it possible for the changes brought about through ‘microevolution’, projected out over long … etc., etc.

In response to your question, “What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?”, I reply; the “mechanism” appears to be Nature itself. Shouldn’t the fossil record give evidence of this kind of gradual change? Where are the missing links? Nature doesn’t seem to cooperate with this hypothesis. Even Darwin recognized how devastating this would be to his theory.

Are we on speaking terms now?

Comment #34503

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 6:24 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

How did they acquire it Lenny? Through point mutations? What’s the mechanism?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Where can we find “information for making clorophyll” anywhere in the human genome?

Did you notice I was careful to specify lower versus higher “animals” in the first quote?

If you have any questions, read Goldschmidt’s book.

Comment #34504

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 6:27 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

And that has what, exactly, to do with whether or not life was designed …. ?

And this has what, exactly, to do with the context within my quote was given?

Comment #34505

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 6:34 PM (e)

SEF wrote:

Saying “the phylogenetic difference between males and females” seems to mean you think males and females are different species from which sub-branches of different animals descend - especially since you label it “macroevolution” on Goldschmidt’s behalf.

My mistake. I should have said “phenotypic” differences. What “species” have arisen in your lifetime? I’m curious. Do you mean “species”, or do you mean “subspecies”, or do you mean “sub-subspecies”? Just because they’re different, doesn’t mean they’re new species. Do you accept hybrid sterility as a test of “speciation”?

Comment #34508

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 7:02 PM (e)

RDLFlank wrote:

Well, then you are worng already. We share 99% of our genome with chimps. We share about 50% with bananas. We share even less with prokaryotes.

May I correct you Lenny? We share 99% of our genome with chimps, yes, that’s true. But what do you mean by genome? The genome is not the total amount of DNA found in chromosomes. The genome has to do with “genes,” which represents about 3% of the total amount of human DNA. The rest is “junk” DNA–though more highly conserved than the genome portions. Doesn’t this fit in well with what Goldschmidt says?

Comment #34509

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

In response to your question, “What mechanism limits the degree to which the microevolution, that even creationists acknowledge, can effect change over billions of generations?”, I reply; the “mechanism” appears to be Nature itself.

Nature is a mechanism.
OK. I think we’re done here.

Comment #34510

Posted by SEF on June 9, 2005 7:12 PM (e)

Species is already a variable enough concept without adding undefined levels of “sub” to it. I wouldn’t call dogs speciated yet but they are well on the way to it. Whereas wolves are already counted as a separate species. The herring gull has not completely speciated because it’s still in contact with neighbouring populations - but it behaves like 2 species in the UK where the ends of the ring meet.

Hybrid sterility is an insufficient condition (and not always testable, eg on fossils!). Donkeys are not the same species as horses. Yet despite “common knowledge” to the contrary, mules (the hybrid) are not always sterile. It’s just that fertility is vanishingly low. Similarly camels and llamas turned out to still be close to their speciation event, as did lions and tigers. With things like yeasts and plants, variations and hybrids tend be much more different and count as separate species more easily than happens with mammals.

To see speciation, it helps if you have a life-form with rapid generations. That’s why there have been more new species of bacteria (and viruses if you count those) than there have been mammals. Plus the prokaryotes are a larger group to start off with than just the mammal lineage out of the whole of the eukaryotes. It’s fairly typical of a human to be dismissive of bacteria though - until they kill you. However, there’s been a new species of mosquito too. Insect generation time is reasonably rapid.

We used to study bacteria, moulds and insects when looking for new traits and divisions to arise - both because there was more chance of seeing something happen in a reasonable amount of lab time and also because very few people object to you being mean to those life-forms. Humans are so speciesist. Anyhow, E.coli can reproduce every 15-20 minutes. That means up to 26-35 thousand generations per year. Humans tend to breed at about 20-25 years for the purposes of counting generations. In the approx 40,000 years since colonising Australia (the first time!), there have only been 1600 to 2000 generations. That’s a lot less than a single bacterial year. Humans need 6 to 7 hundred thousand years to do what bacteria can do in 1 year.

Comment #34511

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 7:19 PM (e)

RDLFlank wrote:

Also, if your (or Behe’s) “front-loading” crap were viable, we’d expect tos ee ever organism have roughly the same size genome (it all has the same “information”, right?). We don’t. As I already noted, salamanders have several times more DNA than humans do.

Here’s something to consider: “However, the genome size of many eukaryotes does not appear to be related to genetic complexity. For example, the genomes of salamanders and lilies contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans.

This apparent paradox was resolved by the discovery that the genomes of most eukaryotic cells contain not only functional genes but also large amounts of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins. The difference in the sizes of the salamander and human genomes thus reflects larger amounts of non-coding DNA, rather than more genes, in the genome of the salamander.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section.601

How many strikes does that make Lenny?

RDLFlank wrote:

So you are of the opinion that chromosome doubling, transpositions, chromosomal fusions, broken chromosomes, or polyploidy are … somehow a problem for evolution and support for ID …. ?

How, exactly. Evolutionary biologists have been discussing these things for thirty years now.

Do try and keep up.

And Goldschmidt was discussing it within the context of “macroevolution” 35 years before that. Like I say Lenny, read his book.

RDLFlank wrote:

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

Lenny, please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism that brings this about. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. (Oh, by the way, Ernst Mayr has already done that in What is Evolution?, and it’s all gobbily-gook. But maybe you can improve upon it.

Is it three strikes, yet, Lenny?

Comment #34513

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 9, 2005 7:23 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #34515

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 7:35 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #34519

Posted by qetzal on June 9, 2005 7:56 PM (e)

Blast, if you actually read the Cirz et al. article, it’s quite clear that they did not really stop mutation. For example:

We observed the same in vitro pre-exposure mutation rate and spectrum for the lexA(S119A) strain as we did for the control strain (Table 3). However, the lexA(S119A) strain exhibited a post-exposure mutation rate that was approximately 100-fold lower than that observed for the ΔlacZ control strain (Table 3).

Comment #34520

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 8:25 PM (e)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

Quoting directly from the original articles entitled “inhibiting” mutation, etc.
“In all, the data indicate that the decreased evolution of resistance in the lexA mutant did not result from decreased persistence or the inability to grow upon acquisition of a gyr mutation, but rather from an inability to induce mutations.”

You’re pinch-hitting for Russell, but perhaps you remember from his earlier post that he said it was B.S. that mutations could be stopped. Would he like to retract that statement?

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

So in other words they are STILL able to evolve resistance but they are not as fast or anywhere near as efficient at doing so. This makes the target LexA considerably attractive for inhibiting because it will slow up their rate of mutation heavily. However, it does nothing to stop existing anitbiotic genes, such as genomic islands like MecA from Stapylococcus aureus. They, like any good scientists, have reported that the mechanism they have uncovered may be significant and reported the potential pathway. We now have a testable hypothesis, because you’ll notice the experiment was performed using double kockout bacteria that didn’t have LexA. The challenge we have now is to replicate the result using some mediator against LexA that inhibits it and see how things go.

And, of course, if it wasn’t for Darwinism, none of this would be happening in the lab! What’s the point?

Let me point out something to you, Joe:

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

You are aware that these mechanisms, to begin with, are there to repair double stranded DNA breaks that result from exposure to environmental pressures like UV correct? If you remove the mechanisms designed to prevent UV damage and then expose them to UV..

Rombesberg, et. al. write: “A few years ago, when he was first starting to think about this, Romesberg encountered a paper in a scientific journal that discussed certain genes that “make mutations,” as he put it. When these genes are deleted from cells, the cells lose their ability to mutate, even when subjected to massive amounts of ultraviolet light.”

You’ve got your logic upside down. If they’ve “remove(d) the mechanisms designed to prevent UV damage and then expose them to UV…” …. ….

Yes, exactly, you’d expect them to mutate all the more since they’re underprotected. But, oh, wait a minute, that’s ONLY if we’re dealing with “random mutations.” So maybe we’re not dealing with random mechanisms.

Romesberg, et. al. wrote in their introduction: “Within the classical paradigm that mutations are the inevitable consequence of replicating a large genome with polymerases of finite fidelity, resistance-conferring mutations are unavoidable. However, recent evidence suggests that bacteria may play a more active role in the mutation of their own genomes in response to at least some DNA-damaging agents by inducing proteins that actually promote mutation.”

So, according to you, mutations occur in order to repair damage to the organism. It’s purposeful activity, in other words. And according to Romesberg, et. al., the organism even has a way of affecting the “rate” of mutations (viz. it controls the rate) when threatened.

Maybe the “classic paradigm” is wrong. In fact, doesn’t what we see seem to act like a DESIGNED response to an outside danger?

As has been pointed out ad infinitum 99.9% of mutations are harmful. And,apparently, the 0.1% that are beneficial are used to “repair” the damage the other mutations cause.

Goodbye RMNS, goodbye!

Comment #34522

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

qetzal wrote:

Blast, if you actually read the Cirz et al. article, it’s quite clear that they did not really stop mutation.

You’re coming late into the discussion/argument. It all started with someone calling my assertion that mutations could be stopped complete B.S. They wanted a citation. I gave them one. What is critical here is not that mutations can be completely stopped, but that the rate of mutation, and a certain type of mutational behavior, can be inhibited (that’s sort of like stopped), and thus, regulated. If that is so–and so it has been demonstrated in the lab–then what does this do to the “classical” notion of “random mutation”? I suggest that we might be looking at some kind of phenomena that has the earmarks of design. Nonetheless, that suggestion is completely independent of why we got onto the subject in the first place.

Comment #34524

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 8:45 PM (e)

Since everyone is reading the Cirz, et. al., article. Did you notice this:

“Thus, our results indicate that the mutations that confer resistance to ciprofoxacin and rifampicin are not simply the result of unavoidable errors accumulated during genome replication, but rather are induced via the derepression of genes whose protein products act to significantly increase mutation rates.” (p.10, online version)

Comment #34525

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 9, 2005 8:49 PM (e)

Yes, exactly, you’d expect them to mutate all the more since they’re underprotected. But, oh, wait a minute, that’s ONLY if we’re dealing with “random mutations.” So maybe we’re not dealing with random mechanisms.

No.

Again:

Double. Stranded. DNA. Breaks.

Do you know what that means for a bacterium? It means *death*. These systems work by recognising where UV excision/repair systems have repaired bases that have formed thymine dimers (Two thymines that have become linked together). In simple terms, they then repair the break by the insertion of random base pairs during replication if it ended up getting missed (Hence why UV causes mutations). If you delete them out as the researches did, then UV is LETHAL because this system no longer functions, and when the chromosomes replicate there are large ‘holes’ in the DNA (double stranded DNA breaks) that cause replication systems to collapse and cell death.

Understand how the system works first and before making silly statements. As you clearly don’t understand how this system works, the rest of your post is irrelevant. Learn about UV excision repair systems and what DNA double stranded breaks are first before writing complete nonsense.

What is critical here is not that mutations can be completely stopped, but that the rate of mutation, and a certain type of mutational behavior, can be inhibited (that’s sort of like stopped),

Good God, now you’ve moved onto pure hillarity! First you claim it can be stopped, then when it’s pointed out even your CITATION disagrees with your assertion you then change it into ‘sort of like stopped’. Sort of? It is either STOPPED or it isn’t. Which is it?

Comment #34527

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 8:49 PM (e)

Here’s some more:

Cirz, et.al. wrote:

“The data suggest that the increase in mutation rate is caused by recombination pathways that are induced to repair antibiotic-mediated DNA damage. A mechanism consistent with our results is illustrated in Figure 3. Three recombinational repair pathways appear to be involved that are distinguished by the type of damage they repair and the type of mutation they induce.”

When you look at Figure 3 online–maybe I’m seeing things–but doesn’t it look like an irreducibly complex process?

Comment #34528

Posted by Russell on June 9, 2005 8:54 PM (e)

(that’s sort of like stopped)

Would he like to retract that statement?

[guffaw]

(That’s sort of like “no”)

Comment #34529

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 9, 2005 9:01 PM (e)

Here’s some more:

Cirz, et.al. wrote:

“The data suggest that the increase in mutation rate is caused by recombination pathways that are induced to repair antibiotic-mediated DNA damage. A mechanism consistent with our results is illustrated in Figure 3. Three recombinational repair pathways appear to be involved that are distinguished by the type of damage they repair and the type of mutation they induce.”

When you look at Figure 3 online–maybe I’m seeing things–but doesn’t it look like an irreducibly complex process?

Comment #34531

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on June 9, 2005 9:15 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #34533

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on June 9, 2005 9:31 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #34545

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:13 PM (e)

Where can we find “information for making clorophyll” anywhere in the human genome?

Did you notice I was careful to specify lower versus higher “animals” in the first quote?

Did you notice that no animal, hgih or low or in between, makes chlorophyll?

Why is that?

If you have any questions, read Goldschmidt’s book.

Why, does Goldschmidt give a scientific theory of ID and tell us how to test it using the scientific method? Despite repeated requests, YOU seem quite unable to …. .

I am still waiting for you to show me how any of Goldschmidt’s ideas, any of them at all, either invalidate evolution or support ID “theory”.

What seems to be the problem?

Comment #34546

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:16 PM (e)

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear …..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont’ skip any steps.

I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as “transpeciation” and “chromosomal changes”.

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

I’ve been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here’s your chance. Right in front of the whole world.

The floor is all yours.

I’m still waiting …. ….

What seems to be the problem, Blast?

Comment #34548

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:19 PM (e)

Here’s something to consider: “However, the genome size of many eukaryotes does not appear to be related to genetic complexity. For example, the genomes of salamanders and lilies contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans.

This apparent paradox was resolved by the discovery that the genomes of most eukaryotic cells contain not only functional genes but also large amounts of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins. The difference in the sizes of the salamander and human genomes thus reflects larger amounts of non-coding DNA, rather than more genes, in the genome of the salamander.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.section …

How many strikes does that make Lenny?

Why aren’t those coding genes all the same, Oh Front-Loaded One?

That makes strike 4.

Comment #34549

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:24 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #34550

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:27 PM (e)

For three days now, I’ve been asking Blast to please please pretty please with sugar on it tell me what the scientific theory of ID is and how we can test it using the scientific method. For three days now I’ve gotten nothing back from him but arm-waving.

I can only think of three possible reaosns why Blast won’t answer my simple question. Either:

(1) there IS NO scientific theory of ID, and IDers like Blast are simply lying to us when they claim there is, or

(2) there IS a scientific theory of ID, but Blast is too ignorant and uninformed to know what it is, or

(3) there IS a scientific theory of ID and Blast DOES know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason, he wants to keep it secret from everyone.

Blast, if you won’t tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, would you at least tell me WHY you won’t tell me? Is it reason number one, number two, or number three?

My money, of course, is on reason number one …. .

Comment #34552

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 9, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

RDLFlank wrote:

So you are of the opinion that chromosome doubling, transpositions, chromosomal fusions, broken chromosomes, or polyploidy are … somehow a problem for evolution and support for ID …. ?

How, exactly. Evolutionary biologists have been discussing these things for thirty years now.

Do try and keep up.

And Goldschmidt was discussing it within the context of “macroevolution” 35 years before that.

Glad to hear it.

Once again I ask —– how does that either invalidate evolution or indicate any kind of design or designer.

Like I say Lenny, read his book.

Read it, thanks. Along with Waddington, Baldwin and a few others that you’ve never even heard of. (I’m a very big fan of the concept of “genetic assimilation”.)

Alas for you, there is no support for ID in any of them. None at all.

If you disagree, please by all means go ahead and show me your theory of ID and how it is supported by Goldschmidt.

Please be as detailed as possible and take as many screens as you need.

Or are you just all blow and no go.

Comment #34553

Posted by Russell on June 10, 2005 12:05 AM (e)

Lenny: Eat your heart out! Blast has maintained stony silence with respect to your question, while I GOT my answer! (i.e. the mechanism that prevents micro- from progressing to macro-evolution: “Nature!”)

On another Blast related question though: I haven’t actually read Goldschmidt, but, second-hand so to speak, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the “hopeful monster” idea - perhaps via Stephen Jay Gould. Please tell me, though, that Goldschmidt didn’t endorse the front-loading idea that Blast ascribes to him.

Comment #34555

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 10, 2005 12:33 AM (e)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

Do you know what that means for a bacterium? It means *death*. These systems work by recognising where UV excision/repair systems have repaired bases that have formed thymine dimers (Two thymines that have become linked together). In simple terms, they then repair the break by the insertion of random base pairs during replication if it ended up getting missed (Hence why UV causes mutations). If you delete them out as the researches did, then UV is LETHAL because this system no longer functions, and when the chromosomes replicate there are large ‘holes’ in the DNA (double stranded DNA breaks) that cause replication systems to collapse and cell death.

Joe, isn’t it possible to look at this in another way? For example, what if you design an experiment where you knock out the genes that “make mutations”, and then test the ensuing bacteria under UV light. If they die, then that’s proof that it is the presence of the gene(s) that has “induced” the mutations, and not simply the damage done by the UV. Here’s what Science Daily wrote: A few years ago, when he was first starting to think about this, Romesberg encountered a paper in a scientific journal that discussed certain genes that “make mutations,” as he put it. When these genes are deleted from cells, the cells lose their ability to mutate, even when subjected to massive amounts of ultraviolet light.

Again, your interpretation is wrong-headed.

The link you provide to the actual PloS article, a link to Table 3, shows “mutations” before and after exposure to the drugs. But if you look closely, you’ll notice that they were comparing “resistant” strains. Those with the lexA inactivated didn’t form any resistance whatsoever, so the data is not reflective of the results of lexA inhibition; they were simply testing their developed mutant lines. So, I think you’ve overstated your case.

Here is an actual quote from the article. Tell me how I should interpret it, please:

Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

So, when you say:

Good God, now you’ve moved onto pure hillarity! First you claim it can be stopped, then when it’s pointed out even your CITATION disagrees with your assertion you then change it into ‘sort of like stopped’. Sort of? It is either STOPPED or it isn’t. Which is it?

I’ll take it slow and easy so you can follow:

John wants to cross the street. But I inhibit him from doing so. Now, did he get to the other side of the street?

John wants to cross the street. But I stopped him from doing so. Did he get to the other side of the street this time?

Or, how about this:
John wants to cross the street. But he was unable to. Now, he still hasn’t made it to the other side, has he?

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

Understand how the system works first and before making silly statements. As you clearly don’t understand how this system works, the rest of your post is irrelevant. Learn about UV excision repair systems and what DNA double stranded breaks are first before writing complete nonsense.

I did. And it took me over twenty minutes. And then it became perfectly clear that you still haven’t fully understood the implications of what Cirz, et. al. have done.

Again, goodby RMNS, goodbye.

Comment #34556

Posted by steve on June 10, 2005 12:33 AM (e)

I’m just happy that Nelson, unlike his dishonest bretheren, has sort of admitted the truth: There is no theory of ID. IC and CSI have been halfassed notions, and are wrong.

Comment #34559

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 10, 2005 1:12 AM (e)

For example, what if you design an experiment where you knock out the genes that “make mutations”, and then test the ensuing bacteria under UV light.

Again, this is obviously going to lead to rampant thymine dimers and then double stranded DNA breaks. This will obviously lead to death.

If they die, then that’s proof that it is the presence of the gene(s) that has “induced” the mutations, and not simply the damage done by the UV.

Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage. What about that are you not getting just yet?

Again, your interpretation is wrong-headed.

No.

Again, you do NOT understand what this system is and what it is for initially. Do you know why it confers resistance against this antibiotic? The actual mechanism?

Here is an actual quote from the article. Tell me how I should interpret it, please:

I’ve already GIVEN you three from the article originally anyway that give what the authors actually said.

Those with the lexA inactivated didn’t form any resistance whatsoever

Sigh.

Yes they did, look again. The only ones that didn’t were the control strain that had the entire system deleted out (again, LOOK at table 3). LexA mutants did have some, again, read the paper and read the table.

hose with the lexA inactivated didn’t form any resistance whatsoever,

Yes they did.

From the paper, numerous times, because you evidently MISSED it:

In all, the data indicate that the decreased evolution of resistance in the lexA mutant did not result from decreased persistence or the inability to grow upon acquisition of a gyr mutation, but rather from an inability to induce mutations.

These in vitro results fully recapitulate the in vivo mouse model studies and demonstrate that LexA cleavage-mediated derepression of one or more genes is essential for the efficient evolution of resistance.

Further evidence that the resistance-conferring mutations are induced is provided by the fact that deletion or mutation of several genes, including lexA, renders cells unable to evolve significant levels of resistance.

All from the article. They can still evolve resistance, but the efficiency of doing so is much lower. In the presence of two antibiotics ciprofloxacin and the other being rifamycin, which inhibits protein synthesis, the bacteria are so unlikely to develop a mutation that it is effectively impossible. Just as it is for HIV against the three retroviral drugs in concert, although this does inevitably happen (MDR HIV does exist). Again, table 3 contradicts you and so do the authors own words. You are grossly distoring the paper.

I’ll take it slow and easy so you can follow:

Patronisation from someone who hasn’t even got a basic understanding how the system in question works is really rich :) You can say that to me when you describe the mechanism that you are trying (hard as you can) to butcher horrifically into something it isn’t.

Until you demonstrate you’ve read a basic textbook on biology about repair mechanisms or answered the numerous questions you’ve ignore, I’m done with you :)

Comment #34560

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 10, 2005 1:29 AM (e)

Russell wrote:

Lenny: Eat your heart out! Blast has maintained stony silence with respect to your question, while I GOT my answer! (i.e. the mechanism that prevents micro- from progressing to macro-evolution: “Nature!”)

I see that this perplexes you, Russell. Let me help you. The fossil record does not support the idea of slow, gradual, evolution (you seem to like Gould; well, consult him). The fossil record is a “record” of what Nature has actually produced. Nature hasn’t actually produced slow, gradual evolution. Ergo, Nature is the mechanism. Now, if you believe in the power of Natural Selection, why is it so hard to believe that Nature has the power to differentiate between “micro-“ and “macro”-evolutionary processes?

As to Goldschmidt: Gould does not represent him in his introduction to the Material Basis as well as he could have. He seems to suggest that Goldschmidt equivocated between an “early mutation” and “systemic mutations”. A careful read will disabuse of such, alleged, equivocation. Goldschmidt makes it clear that the ONLY means of “macromutation” is a “systemic mutation.”

Now, here’s one relevant quote, written in 1940:

“Let us compare the chromosome with its serial order to a long printed sentence made up of hundreds of letters of which only twenty-five different ones exist. In reading the sentence, a misprint of one letter here and there will not change the sense of the sentnece; even the misprint of a whole word (rose for sore) will hardly impress the reader. But the compositor might arrange the same set of type into a comletely different sentence with a completely new meaning, and this in a great many different ways, depending upon the number of permutating letters and the complexity of the language (the latter acting as “selection”). To elevate such a model to the level of a biological theory we have, of course, to restate it in chemical terms. I don’t think that an actual chemical model can yet be found. But we might indicate the type of such a model which fulfills at least some, though not all, of the requirements. It is not meant as a hypothesis of chemical chromsomal structure, but only as a chmeical model for visualizing the actual meaning of a repatterning process.

Let us compae the chromosome to a very long chani molecule of a protein. The linear patter of teh chromosome is then the typical pattern of the different amin-acid residues. Let us assume that this chain molecule acts as an autocatalytic proteinase (an assumption required for any model of the germ plasm). As it is known that each protein (and therefore probably each proteinase) is characterized by the length of the chain, the tyhpe of amino acid residues, and the specific order or pattern or rhythym of the repetition of the residues along the chain, inumerable types of protein may be obtained by permutations of these variable, without any change within the individual residues, the loci of the chain; still more may be obtained if different polypeptids are united end to end into a superchain. The mechanics of the possible change from one type of protein to another by a pattern change involving the three variable may be described in terms equivalent to the words breakage, inversion, translocation, deletion, rearrangement….A similar condition, applied to small parts of a chain molecule, would be a perfect model for mutations, if mutations were actually identical with position effects, as we claim. But larger and complete repatterning effects, producing a new chemical system though using nothing but the same residues, would be the model for those complete pattern changes within the chrmosome, or systemic mutations, which account, as we believe, for the two major steps of macroevolution. (p. 248-249)

Comment #34563

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 10, 2005 2:36 AM (e)

(A) BftP:“For example, what if you design an experiment where you knock out the genes that “make mutations”, and then test the ensuing bacteria under UV light.”

(B)JoD: “Again, this is obviously going to lead to rampant thymine dimers and then double stranded DNA breaks. This will obviously lead to death.”

©BftP: “If they die, then that’s proof that it is the presence of the gene(s) that has “induced” the mutations, and not simply the damage done by the UV.”

(D) JoD: “Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage. What about that are you not getting just yet?”

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes “will obviously lead to death”, then how can you say in (D) “Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage.” In other words, how do “dead” bacteria evolve???

Now, let’s turn it around: a “mutational” pathway is designed into the bacteria. When it is subjected to UV, this pathway is activated, higher mutation rates ensue, allowing the bacteria to make needed repairs. It now functions properly into the future.

The power of ID.

In regards to the article: there were in vivo and in vitro experiments conducted. You’re quoting from the in vitro section. Here’s what they said: “In dramatic contrast, no resistant mutants were isolated from mice infected with the lexA(S119A) strain. And in the abstract they clearly say: In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics.

And the quote I’ve used already: Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

They’re using an “in vivo” infection model; not an “in vitro” one. The “in vitro” model is used to get at the actual mechanism of resistance formation:

Here’s there quote:
“In order to further characterize the genetic requirements of these resistance-conferring mutations, we studied bacteria in vitro.”

Regarding Table 3:

“We next examined the mutation spectrum of the gyrA gene in the resistant clones by sequencing a 1,000-nt region encompassing the quinolone resistance-determining region [33]. We found that the spectrum of the post-exposure mutations differed significantly from the pre-exposure mutations (Table 3).

Comment #34569

Posted by PaulP on June 10, 2005 2:57 AM (e)

BlastFromThePast:
1) If you think transpeciation has occurred, then why cite Huxley saying that the fact that it had not been observed was a problem for Darwinism? I naturally deduced you thought transpeciation is not possible.

Remember Huxley were up against the idea that species are immutable forms, which fails if transpeciation occurs.

2) Darwin did not know about genes. Therefore his idea will not be disproved if the Modern Synthesis’s theory on the making of new species turns out to be wrong.

3) Regarding the Modern Synthesis, you still have not explained why it cannot produce new species. The existence of a mechanism that inhibits mutation is a logically necessary but not logically sufficient condition to prove that the Modern Synthesis is wrong on this point. To keep to your analogy, to stop someone from crossing the road it may be logically necessary for you to be there to stop him, but that does not mean you thereby stop everyone.

4) I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis’s mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call “information”.

Comment #34575

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 10, 2005 3:47 AM (e)

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes “will obviously lead to death”, then how can you say in (D) “Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage.” In other words, how do “dead” bacteria evolve???

Now you’re just being dense.

They are induced BECAUSE of damage by UV which causes the double stranded DNA breaks. The double stranded DNA breaks are caused by UV. Ergo, when UV damage (Thymine dimerisation) occurs the DNA ‘breaks’ after replication and therefore SOS responses are enacted to repair the damage originally caused by inserting random new bases. This causes the mutation later on, the UV however does not, only as an indirect consequence of the way the SOS/repair systems function.

Geddit?

Now, let’s turn it around: a “mutational” pathway is designed into the bacteria. When it is subjected to UV, this pathway is activated

WRONG.

This is where you demonstrate you clearly do not understand this pathway. The repair mechanism is *after* UV damage but not because of UV damage. It is caused by double stranded DNA breaks, these occur after replication, not before and certainly not during UV damage.

If this is ‘designed’ then I must say it’s pretty shockingly bad at it, because very few bacteria survive DNA breaks even with these mechanisms. It’s again, just ‘good enough’ which would be expected from evolution but certainly not good enough for a designer (unless said designer is fairly incompetent).

In regards to the article: there were in vivo and in vitro experiments conducted.

Correct, but on plates you get much higher numbers of bacteria than you do in a host. Pathogens have inherently lower population sizes than do non-pathogens. The point is to demonstrate that evolution is not stopped, which the in vitro experiments prove.

This shouldn’t be that hard to get through to you.

“In dramatic contrast, no resistant mutants were isolated from mice infected with the lexA(S119A) strain. And in the abstract they clearly say: In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics.

Two antibiotics…

What did I say?

In the presence of two antibiotics ciprofloxacin and the other being rifamycin, which inhibits protein synthesis, the bacteria are so unlikely to develop a mutation that it is effectively impossible.

I’m well aware of that, question is, did you read what I wrote? :) I don’t think so.

Here, using an in vivo infection model, we show that interfering with LexA autoproteolysis renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to mutate and acquire resistance to ciprofloxacin.

Again, I’ve pointed out why this is above and noted they used TWO antibiotics, not just one. Try again :)

They’re using an “in vivo” infection model; not an “in vitro” one. The “in vitro” model is used to get at the actual mechanism of resistance formation:

Correct, but noting that even with this system gone they can still evolve mutations.

QED.

Now answer some of the other challenges presented to you :)

Comment #34576

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 10, 2005 4:05 AM (e)

Joseph: If in (B) you say the absence of the genes “will obviously lead to death”, then how can you say in (D) “Wrong, because the genes involved are induced because of UV damage.” In other words, how do “dead” bacteria evolve???

I’ll point this out again, in a more straight forward manner:

1) UV light causes a thymine dimer in the DNA, causing it to ‘bulge’ so to speak.

2) DNA repair enzymes recognise the abnormal DNA and an excision enzyme cuts out the offending dimer.

3) The ‘hole’ left in the DNA can now be patched up by a polymerase using the existing DNA as a template.

4) Extensive UV damage may mean that some of the thymine dimers are not resolved and removed correctly.

5) During DNA replication that comes after the above, if the hole made from the excised thymine dimers has not been removed, it causes a ‘break’ in the DNA where there is no template to read on during replication.

6) SOS genes are induced in response to these breaks in DNA, *NOT* to the UV. This damage to DNA is also what induces the antibiotic resistance in question.

7) Random base pairs are inserted (not specific ones, ANY old random base pairs) in order to repair the breakage.

8) This is usually lethal, but under certain conditions this acts as a source of mutations that end up with beneficial consequences.

Ergo, this entire system is simple random mutations (SOS repair systems are exactly that, they are last resort enzymes) combined with natural selection (on the results of the insertion). Those that end up getting something correct are the ones that survive, but as this is very low and few do, it’s not an efficient process.

Again, I’ve pointed out why this is above and noted they used TWO antibiotics, not jus one

Noting: Actually I just realised I’ve worded this badly, they did their experiments with rifampicin as a control only (stops all messenger RNA being made, hence no protein translation). They did not use both antibiotics at the same time in their experiment. My other points are unaffected however.

Comment #34684

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 6:13 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #34685

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 6:17 PM (e)

YOU are the one who wrote:

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear …..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

*I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding:

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont’ skip any steps.

I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as “transpeciation” and “chromosomal changes”.

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

I’ve been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here’s your chance. Right in front of the whole world.

The floor is all yours.

Well, Blast, what’s the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer.

Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls?

Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and “spell it out for me”, I’m waiting.

I’m STILL waiting, Blast …. Feel free to take it slow and easy so I can follow …. ….

sound of crickets chirping>

Yep, that’s what I thought.

Comment #34686

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 6:20 PM (e)

The fossil record does not support the idea of slow, gradual, evolution (you seem to like Gould; well, consult him). The fossil record is a “record” of what Nature has actually produced. Nature hasn’t actually produced slow, gradual evolution.

No shit. Paleontology accepted this thirty years ago. Do try and keep up, would you?

Are you under some sort of delusion that punctuated equilibria somehow makes evolution wrong, or somehow supports ID?

Perhaps you should read something more recent than 1940 once in a while ……

Comment #34689

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 6:30 PM (e)

Now, here’s one relevant quote, written in 1940:

Note that, in 1940, no one knew what the genetic material was, no one knew how it reproduced itself, no one knew how mutations happened, no one knew where new genes came from, no one knew what chromosomes were or how they worked, and no one knew how genes (whatever they were) produced living cells.

The fact that Blast has to rely so heavily on 60-year old ignorance, says a lot about his, uh, ID “theory”. Asking Goldschmidt about how chromosomal mutations work is like asking Wilbur Wright about how a jet engine works.

Comment #34691

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 10, 2005 6:59 PM (e)

PaulP wrote:

BlastFromThePast:
1) If you think transpeciation has occurred, then why cite Huxley saying that the fact that it had not been observed was a problem for Darwinism? I naturally deduced you thought transpeciation is not possible.

Remember Huxley were up against the idea that species are immutable forms, which fails if transpeciation occurs.

2) Darwin did not know about genes. Therefore his idea will not be disproved if the Modern Synthesis’s theory on the making of new species turns out to be wrong.

3) Regarding the Modern Synthesis, you still have not explained why it cannot produce new species. The existence of a mechanism that inhibits mutation is a logically necessary but not logically sufficient condition to prove that the Modern Synthesis is wrong on this point. To keep to your analogy, to stop someone from crossing the road it may be logically necessary for you to be there to stop him, but that does not mean you thereby stop everyone.

4) I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis’s mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call “information”.

#1) Perhaps I was not explicit enough. The reason that Natural Selection is called NS is because Darwin was very, very much influenced by domesticated species. Historically, he lived at a time when breeding was in the ascendancy–you could actually make big money selling very rich royalty the latest new “species” of a domesticated animal, primarily birds. (Darwin raised pigeons) He saw how breeders could move a race of animals in a specific direction, to the point that huge physical differences between domesticated “species”, really races, appeared. He thought if this variation could be continued……, well, you get the idea. This he called Artificial Selection. So, what Huxley was really disappointed about was that dogs, while bred to be extremely different in outward form and appearance, still remained dogs. No breeder had ever managed to “cross” the “species” boundary: that’s “transpeciation.” Let me be the first to say that if they ever manage to turn a dog into a cat, then I’ll be 200% behind Darwin’s theory. (But, of course, we know that as domesticated animals are more and more in-bred, they become more and more unhealthy.)

#2) Darwin’s theory fails on many counts: (a) species are not infinitely plastic–as I just mentioned; (b) huge amounts of intermediate forms would have to evolve and then become extinct; yet the fossil record shows none of this; © Darwin didn’t think that sterility really existed–in other words, he didn’t believe it was a permanent, stable phenomena of biological forms [since, of course, if sterility “develops”, this marks an end to the needed plasticity of (a); (d) his mistaken notions of variability; for example, he would call what we call a “variety” an incipient species. In other words, according to his theory what has become more variated than the original species, i.e., the varietal form, is more hearty than the original form (this being the product of his mistaken understanding of heterosis, which is still not fully understood by modern geneticists), meaning that this new “variety” will someday replace the original form. Thus, the variety is not a “subspecies”, rather it’s an “incipient species”, moving away from, and beyond the original species. I don’t think this fits most people’s common sense idea of how horticulture works.

So, I think Darwin has more problems than just his panspermia theory, and his idea that morphological changes were passed on by a “correlated” change in the sex organs of the creature.

#3) The article we were talking about really is saying that a “particular” type of mutational mechanism can be completely stopped; but not all of mutations. Nonetheless, to me this represents one more chink in the armor of the Modern Synthesis. I say that the Modern Synthesis cannot explain “macroevolutionary” steps because it’s based on a mutational model that is entirely too tenous. Bateson, at the turn of the 20th century, a great figure in the early geneticists, quickly realized that genetics is “conservative”: that is, it tends to keep what it has–change is somewhat deplored (even the “mutational mechanisms” for bacterial repair of DNA damage is a “conservative” process since it attempts to get the now broken, and perhaps deranged DNA, back to it’s original form) and so how do explain “new” genes. The two things that were happening back in the 1920’s was that X-rays had been discoverd, these X-rays in turn resulted in changes to the so-called “genes”, and Morgan in his lab had discovered that he could make Drosophila change form using these X-rays. So here was a possible source of change. Then R.A. Fisher came along and used the idea of point-mutations to build a mathematical model which, in his estimation, meant that some beneficial mutation could eventually be “fixed” (fixed in stable ratios within a species) in a population–the birth of population genetics. It’s hard just to imagine mutations being beneficial; it’s even harder to believe that this mutation won’t be “swamped” by the lack of it in the rest of the population. His model–his mathematical formula–has been questioned, beginning with Sewell Wright, and ending with Fred Hoyle. So, I guess what I’m really saying is that mathematically, it doesn’t really seem to hold up. And the presence of considerable heterogeneity in protein structures of organisms suggest that any one single point-mutation (which is Fisher’s mathematical building block) doesn’t have that powerful an effect (The Neutral Theory of Kimura).

#4) Paul, I’m not sure I know what you mean here. The information is in the chromosomes–and not just the chromosomes, but also in the cell structure, which itself is intimately involved in proper protein production. But how much information is there? Just enough, more than enough, gobs and gobs? The protein producing percentage of the human genome is 3%. What information does the other 97% contain? Is there enough information for whole classes of species?

That’s one set of questions. But what about “speciation”? Are there major levels of organizing information, and, if so, is a “family” of species found at one level, and a “genera” at a lower level? How do shift from one level to the other? Is this shift mark a complete break phenotypically/physically from other forms? Well, it’s anybody’s guess. In the meantime, I think we look at the fossil record and recognize that species are discrete, we don’t find many connecting links. So, Modern Synthesis, or plain old Darwinism, it looks like nature changes quickly; in other words, “micromutation” (the essence of the MS) won’t work, we need “macromutations.”

Comment #34692

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 7:40 PM (e)

So, Modern Synthesis, or plain old Darwinism, it looks like nature changes quickly; in other words, “micromutation” (the essence of the MS) won’t work, we need “macromutations.”

How dreadful.

So what. As alreadyb noted, gene doubling, chromosome doubling, polyploidy, chromosomal fusion/splitting, and changes in regulatory or Hox genes have been part of biology for 35 years now.

So what the heck is it that you are bitching about?

And when are you going to tell tell me about the scientific theory of ID (take it as slow and easy as you need to).

Comment #34696

Posted by frank schmidt on June 10, 2005 9:26 PM (e)

Is BlastfromthePast really John Davison, minus the produce section?

He is the only one I know who doesn’t realize that Goldschmidt’s ideas were discredited; today he’s known only for the phrase “hopeful monster.”

Comment #34701

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 10, 2005 11:06 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #34706

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 11, 2005 12:59 AM (e)

BlastfromthePast wrote:

(b) huge amounts of intermediate forms would have to evolve and then become extinct; yet the fossil record shows none of this;

I’d like a simple clarification: is “Blast” saying that no transitional fossil sequences exist?

Comment #34712

Posted by PaulP on June 11, 2005 5:04 AM (e)

Question 1: are there life forms now existing that did not exist in the past. If so then where did they come from? All I’ve read above suggests Blast does not not believe new forms can arise at all.

Question 2: “Darwin’s theory fails on many counts: (a) species are not infinitely plastic”. Where does wither Darwin’s theory or the Modern Synthesis require infinite plasticity?

Question 3: How does your point 3 demonstrate why/how the Modern Synthesis cannot produce new species? What you have written explains why you hold your opinion but does not explain why the rest of us should agree with you.

My original point 4 was “I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis’s mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call “information”.”
I think you have joined together two different things and confused yourself. No attack on the Modern Synthesis proves ID right. In particular, even an intelligently designed life form could mutate in accordance with the Modern Synthesis.

Comment #34790

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 11, 2005 9:21 PM (e)

Hey Blast:

YOU are the one who wrote:

Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material—it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear …..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can.

*I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding:

Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont’ skip any steps.

I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as “transpeciation” and “chromosomal changes”.

Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible.

What does the designer do, precisely, in your view.

What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does.

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today.

I’ve been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here’s your chance. Right in front of the whole world.

The floor is all yours.

Well, Blast, what’s the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer.

Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls?

Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and “spell it out for me”, I’m waiting.

Hello? Blast? Hello?? Are you still there, Blast? Hello?

sound of crickets chirping>

Yep, that’s what I thought ……

IDers are cowards, all.

Comment #35105

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 14, 2005 12:06 AM (e)

PaulP wrote:

Question 1: are there life forms now existing that did not exist in the past. If so then where did they come from? All I’ve read above suggests Blast does not not believe new forms can arise at all.

Question 2: “Darwin’s theory fails on many counts: (a) species are not infinitely plastic”. Where does wither Darwin’s theory or the Modern Synthesis require infinite plasticity?

Question 3: How does your point 3 demonstrate why/how the Modern Synthesis cannot produce new species? What you have written explains why you hold your opinion but does not explain why the rest of us should agree with you.

My original point 4 was “I do not see how you get from ID to your alternative. In particular the Modern Systhesis’s mechanism for producing new species could still occur but working on intelligently designed blocks of what you call “information”.”

1.) But Huxley knew that forms had arisen over time, and he’s the one who made the statement. I’ll stick to my original response.

2.) Remember the famous “diagram” in the Origins? Well, it’s V-shaped, with the top “gap” the product of diversification (=variability). Extend the V’s out—where, and how, does it end? Darwin never gives an explanation.

3.) My answer to #4 is more of an argument as to why microevolution, in all likelihood, produces macroevolutionary changes. I can’t find any evolutionary explanation that seems sensible. And reading the Origins makes me suspect of Darwin’s claims. Then you have people like Golschmidt who were eminent scientists, looked long and hard at this very question, and who decide that micro and macro are basically two different worlds. Believe me, I have an open mind to this, but the argument/hypothesis has to hold water. I’ve looked up and down, consulted the acclaimed experts, but still haven’t found anything that I find satisfying. Sorry.

4.) Well, I disagree. I don’t think that you can simply say you have “ID blocks” and the the MS mechanism comes along and does the rest–they’re really apples and oranges. The MS simply doesn’t present any mechanism powerful enough to overcome the conserving nature of genetics and cell architecture. It’s like trying to climb up a down-going escalator on crutches, when what you need is “flubber”. (I hope you watch Disney films!)

PaulP wrote:

I think you have joined together two different things and confused yourself. No attack on the Modern Synthesis proves ID right. In particular, even an intelligently designed life form could mutate in accordance with the Modern Synthesis.

No, I’m not confused. Somehow you’ve become confused. I’m not a real IDer (I’ve stated that on this board a number of times); I’m more concerned that Darwinism leads science down the wrong trail. Having no theory is better than continuing to rely on Darwin’s. That’s how I feel. ID is literally about recognizing the presence of design, and not really, at least at this point–and probably not even down the road–a full-blown theory. Let’s remember that there have been lots of critics of the MS before anyone even heard of ID. And let’s remember that a life-long atheist changed his view on life based on the arguments of ID. So, there must be some logical persuasiveness to ID, so why be so dismissive of it.

Comment #35106

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 14, 2005 12:10 AM (e)

Wayne wrote:

I’d like a simple clarification: is “Blast” saying that no transitional fossil sequences exist?

No, I’m saying that according to Darwin we ought to see “lots” of transitional fossil sequences. (And, of course, let’s admit, there’s controversy over the few transitional sequences that are claimed.)

Comment #35108

Posted by Russell on June 14, 2005 12:45 AM (e)

And, of course, let’s admit, there’s controversy over the few transitional sequences that are claimed.

“Few?”

Hey, I don’t doubt there is controversy about just about anything. But what, specifically, are you referring to here, that has any bearing on whether the modern synthesis is fundamentally wrong, or whether the IDists have anything of any substance to contribute?

Or is this just another one of those throwaway creationist shibboleths?

Comment #35109

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on June 14, 2005 1:35 AM (e)

Blast wrote:

Having no theory is better than continuing to rely on Darwin’s. That’s how I feel.

slaps forehead>

Blast, for the umpteenth time: Science. Does. NOT. Work. That. Way. And if you do, that´s not our problem. Now please answer Lenny´s questions or get off the pizpot.

Comment #35114

Posted by PaulP on June 14, 2005 2:59 AM (e)

Blast:

You have gone into great detail on your problems with the Modern Synthesis and mentioned that you think there is some merit in ID. You also accept “microevolution”.

1) I am still asking if YOU think new life forms have arisen. If so how is this compatible with ID? If not then please explain the fossil record.

2) The V you refer to does not imply infinite plasticity. Darwin did not think a dog could give birth to a cat today.

3) Regardless of your problems with the Modern Synthesis, ID is intellectually a joke at this point. If you are so demanding of the Modern Synthesis, how can you not notice the problems with ID? What have you have posted here that gives support to ID?

Comment #35126

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 14, 2005 7:14 AM (e)

No, I’m saying that according to Darwin we ought to see “lots” of transitional fossil sequences.

If we see even ONE, that means creationism is dead, doesn’t it. (shrug)

Now then, are you going to explain to me how new alleles form? Are you going to explain to me why mammals don’t have the genes for rattlesnake venom, or why animals don’t have the genes for chlorophyll, or how chromosomal rearranging can produce any new genes? I’ll even let you cite a few more New Age tree-huggers as “experts, Blast.

Or were you just lying to me when you cliamed you would explain all this.

Comment #35127

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 14, 2005 7:18 AM (e)

I’ve looked up and down, consulted the acclaimed experts,

Uh, Blast, so far then only “acclaimed experts” I’ve heard you cite were a biologist from 60 years ago (before the structure of genetics was even understood) and a New Age “philosopher and ecological visionary”.

(snicker) (giggle)

You’re a funny guy, Blast. Thanks for showing everyone how utterly vacuous IDers really are.

Comment #35172

Posted by PvM on June 14, 2005 11:56 AM (e)

Blast wrote:

No, I’m saying that according to Darwin we ought to see “lots” of transitional fossil sequences. (And, of course, let’s admit, there’s controversy over the few transitional sequences that are claimed.)

Can you provide the exact quotes where Darwin makes these claims? Actual calculations of expected transitional fossils match quite well the observed number. There are in fact quite a few transitional fossils, and few controversies but if you have some real arguments to share with us, please feel free to do so.

ransitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt

Fossil hominids

That you may not be able to find any explanations you like, does not mean that science has not addressed them. My problem with ID is that based on such ignorance, it insists on accepting the default explanation of design.

Vacuity at work…

Comment #35175

Posted by PvM on June 14, 2005 12:04 PM (e)

When asked about Darwin and infinite plasticity, Blast ‘responds’ with:

2.) Remember the famous “diagram” in the Origins? Well, it’s V-shaped, with the top “gap” the product of diversification (=variability). Extend the V’s out—-where, and how, does it end? Darwin never gives an explanation.

So Darwin never addressed the issue? Is that Blast’s argument? And yet he makes the claim that Darwin’s theory requires infinite plasticity.

Is this your final answer?

Comment #35177

Posted by PvM on June 14, 2005 12:10 PM (e)

Blast wrote:

.) Well, I disagree. I don’t think that you can simply say you have “ID blocks” and the the MS mechanism comes along and does the rest—they’re really apples and oranges. The MS simply doesn’t present any mechanism powerful enough to overcome the conserving nature of genetics and cell architecture. It’s like trying to climb up a down-going escalator on crutches, when what you need is “flubber”. (I hope you watch Disney films!)

It seems that Blast’s view of the genome is somewhat simplistic, calling it conserving when in fact, the genome seems to be excellently geared towards evolvability. In other words, the observation that evolution itself is under selective control is quite fascinating. The existence of neutrality in the genotype-phenotype mapping is not only essential for evolvability but is under selective control as well. Natural selection is indeed a very powerful mechanism, one which we barely have started to understand beyond the direct impact. How natural selection can affect evolvability helps explain how evolution has been able to be so efficient.

Comment #35228

Posted by Henry J on June 14, 2005 4:26 PM (e)

Darwin’s view of Puncutated Equilibrium:
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.153

He didn’t believe the “phyletic gradualism” that is sometimes attrirbute to him.

Henry

Comment #35260

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 14, 2005 6:33 PM (e)

It seems that Blast’s view of the genome is somewhat simplistic

That’s a polite way of saying “Blast doesn’t know what the hell he is blithering about”.

Waddya expect from someone whose source of “science information” is a self-proclaimed “philosopher and ecological visionary”.

(snicker) (giggle) (howls of laughter)

Comment #35288

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 14, 2005 8:25 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

That you may not be able to find any explanations you like, does not mean that science has not addressed them. My problem with ID is that based on such ignorance, it insists on accepting the default explanation of design.

My problem with Darwinism is that even when confronted with a lack of transitional fossil organisms, it remains undeterred.

PvM wrote:

=It seems that Blast’s view of the genome is somewhat simplistic, calling it conserving when in fact, the genome seems to be excellently geared towards evolvability.

Hardy-Weinberg statistics are fairly conservative, I would think. We just finished–on another post–going round and round on bacterial repair systems. These, too, are conservative in nature.

PaulP wrote:

1) I am still asking if YOU think new life forms have arisen. If so how is this compatible with ID? If not then please explain the fossil record.

2) The V you refer to does not imply infinite plasticity. Darwin did not think a dog could give birth to a cat today.

3) Regardless of your problems with the Modern Synthesis, ID is intellectually a joke at this point. If you are so demanding of the Modern Synthesis, how can you not notice the problems with ID? What have you have posted here that gives support to ID?

1.) Whether I think life forms have arisen or not is entirely academic–becuase they have. Do I think that the fact that new life-forms have arisen invalidates ID–obviously not. What is the actual mechanism? That remains to be discovered.

2.) Ah, but, indeed, Darwin did think that. What makes you think he wouldn’t?

3.) The Modern Synthesis is a mathematical argument via Fisher, Haldane and, Wright. ID is a mathematical argument courtesy of Dembski. Dembski’s math makes more sense to me than Fisher’s.

Comment #35299

Posted by PvM on June 14, 2005 10:14 PM (e)

Blast wrote:

My problem with Darwinism is that even when confronted with a lack of transitional fossil organisms, it remains undeterred.

But that’s not really a problem for Darwinism, nor is there really a ‘lack of transitional fossils’.

Blast wrote:

Hardy-Weinberg statistics are fairly conservative, I would think.

And?… Really Blast, are you thinking that evolutionary theory is all about Hardy-Weinberg statistics?

When asked about plasticity Blast states

Ah, but, indeed, Darwin did think that. What makes you think he wouldn’t?

So far you have presented no evidence that Darwin did think this, other than posturing…

If you consider Dembski’s ‘math’ to make more sense than science, fine but realize that Dembski’s ‘math’ is irrelevant. ID is a flawed argument based on an argument from ignorance aka as eliminative argument or God of the Gaps. That you consider it ‘making more sense to you’ is hardly a relevant argument. Your argument so far is based on some unsupported claims and irrelevant statements. Btw is you believe that evolutionary science is nothing more than Fisher, Haldane and Wright, you’re in for a big surprise.

Is this your final answer?

Comment #35300

Posted by PvM on June 14, 2005 10:19 PM (e)

Are we being trolled?

Comment #35301

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 14, 2005 10:23 PM (e)

Dembski’s math makes more sense to me than Fisher’s.

Now you’re back to quoting Dembski? What happened to the “ecological guru”?

Oh, and when are you going to tell me where I can find the genes for chlorophyll in any animal? Or the genes for mammalian hair in fish? Or even the genes for coba venom in a rattlesnake?

Dude, go back to regurgiquoting. At least that’s much more coherent.

Comment #35303

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 14, 2005 10:25 PM (e)

My problem with Darwinism is that even when confronted with a lack of transitional fossil organisms, it remains undeterred.

Um, your pal Behe doesn’t seem to think there is any “lack of transitional fossils”. In fact, he says that life evolved through common descent.

Why is he wrong and you are right?

Oh, I forgot — you’re not speaking to me, are you. (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #35323

Posted by PaulP on June 15, 2005 7:20 AM (e)

Blast wrote:

Whether I think life forms have arisen or not is entirely academic—becuase they have. Do I think that the fact that new life-forms have arisen invalidates ID—obviously not. What is the actual mechanism? That remains to be discovered.

If you think transpeciation has occurred, then why quote Huxley saying that the fact that it has not been observed is a problem for Darwinism?

If transpeciation occurs, what is intelligently designed?

Comment #35514

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 17, 2005 1:20 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

So Darwin never addressed the issue? Is that Blast’s argument? And yet he makes the claim that Darwin’s theory requires infinite plasticity.

Is this your final answer?

Let me be more precise: Darwin says that he can envision species giving rise to genera, genera to families, families to orders, and (in the first edition)orders to classes. Why does he stop at classes? Why not continue the progression from classes to phyla and from phyla to kingdoms? Why does he stop at the class level? What is the mechanism for stopping?

Comment #35516

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 17, 2005 1:28 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #35517

Posted by steve on June 17, 2005 1:29 PM (e)

Dembski’s math makes more sense to me than Fisher’s.

Too bad it doesn’t make sense to David Wolpert.

Comment #35535

Posted by BlastfromthePast on June 17, 2005 5:35 PM (e)

steve wrote:

Too bad it doesn’t make sense to David Wolpert.

Does Fisher make sense to David Wolpert?

Comment #35544

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 17, 2005 7:11 PM (e)

Here’s a little something from the latest New Scientist:

That’s nice. How does this either invalidate evolution, or help ID “theory (whatever the heck THAT might be) in any way shape or form?

You talk much, and say little.

Comment #35608

Posted by PvM on June 18, 2005 12:18 PM (e)

Blast quote mines:

“If specific regions of chromosomes can have very punctuated events, it means our models based on gradual evolution are probably wrong,” he says.

So does this mean that evolutionary theory is wrong? Or ‘our models’? Gradual clock like changes…

Blast also misunderstand Darwin

Let me be more precise: Darwin says that he can envision species giving rise to genera, genera to families, families to orders, and (in the first edition)orders to classes. Why does he stop at classes? Why not continue the progression from classes to phyla and from phyla to kingdoms? Why does he stop at the class level? What is the mechanism for stopping?

Is there a stop at the class level? Let’s first understand Linnaeus. Remember that phylum and family were added. In fact, searching for phylum/phyla in Origin of Species returns no hits.

The Linnaean taxonomy is a formal system for classifying and naming living things based on a simple hierarchical structure, from most general to most similar The basic hierarchy as formulated by Linneus, is as follows:

  1. Imperium (“Empire”) - the phenomenal world
  2. Regnum (“Kingdom”) - the three great divisions of nature at the time - animal, vegetable, and mineral
  3. Classis (“Class”) - subdivisions of the above, in the animal kingdom six were recognized (mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, insects, and worms)
  4. Ordo (“Order”) - further subdivision of the above - the class Mammalia has eight
  5. Genus - further subdivisions of the order - in the mammalian order Primates there are four. e.g. Homo
  6. Species - subdivisions of genus, e.g. Homo sapiens.
  7. Varietas (“Variety”) - species variant, e.g. Homo sapiens europaeus.

As time progressed changes were made. The rank of Empire is obviously superfluous, while Variety came to be used only by gardeners, insect collectors, etc. The use of Latin was replaced by the vernacular, although it is still retained in the actual generic and specific names. And two new ranks were erected - Phylum (or Division in the case of Plants) was added between Kingdom and Class, and Family between Order and Genus, giving seven hierarchical ranks in all. So, in this nested system of rankings, kingdoms are made up of phyla, phyla of classes, classes of orders, and so on; each higher rank including at least one and usually more subordinate members. This seven-layered hierarchy is the version still used today Kingdom
Phylum,Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Link

Darwin wrote:

I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups.

Link

Comment #35609

Posted by PvM on June 18, 2005 12:25 PM (e)

More on the gene duplication ‘quote mining’.

Evan Eichler on the UW homepage describes it quite well:

Our research specifically addresses a new paradigm that has emerged in the past few years in which particular regions of the human genome have been shown active in the acquisition, duplication and dispersal of large gene-containing genomic segments.

We hypothesize that these ‘jumping genomic segments’ are part of an ongoing evolutionary process that results in a novel form of large-scale variation in human genomic DNA and contributes rapidly to primate gene evolution.

Check out the lab web site

A two-step model for the origin and dispersal of recently duplicated segments in the human genome. Genomic segments of various lengths from different regions of the genome were duplicated to an ancestral pericentromeric region followed by the dispersal of a mosaic genomic segment to multiple pericentromeric regions.

Comment #36039

Posted by Henry J on June 22, 2005 10:53 PM (e)

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Plus “Domain” as the rank of eukaryotes or prokaryotes.