Epigenetics and GMO?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 21, 2015

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Would it be best to get Darwinism out of the discussion?

Mathematician Peter Saunders on Darwinism and epigenetics, Part II, Following on Part I (see especially Mae Wan-Ho):

Peter Saunders: The idea is that if you have an organism, say maize, and you want it to be resistant to a certain herbicide — then what you do, consistent with the Modern Synthesis, is you find the “gene” that the herbicide resists in something else and you transfer it to maize. There you are. The only thing is that too depends on the 1960s thinking about the “gene.”

What is that piece of DNA actually doing? Remember what they transfer isn’t the “gene.” It’s a piece of DNA, which is not the same thing. You have to ask — but what does it actually do? It doesn’t actually block. What it does is it alters metabolism in the plant in such a way, which in connection with other things that are already in the plant, will cause it to be resistant to the herbicide.

The interesting thing is — I remember once seeing a talk describing how mice had gotten into a corn storage shed and they’d eaten the non-GM corn and ignored the GM corn completely.

Suzan Mazur: That’s fascinating.

Peter Saunders: But it isn’t magic at all, the reason is the action of the “gene” was to block the metabolism at some point and at this point formaldehyde was thought to be created and then it was going to be destroyed. But the formaldehyde wasn’t destroyed because the “gene” was blocked. Mice don’t like formaldehyde.

Note: Suzan Mazur is author of The Origin of Life Circus

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wd400: You guys crack me up. We're profession comedians. So thanks!Mung_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

VC: No one knows what pattern universal common descent would produce. Indeed.Mung_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation.
And that claim has been refuted by the experts. Heck even YOU said that a family tree, which is an example of branching descent and stochastic variation, isn't a nested hierarchy. Now you are contradicting yourself. And you are too afraid to explain why you do such things.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
What it means is that the nested hierarchy is evidence of common descent,
Only to people who don't know what a nested hierarchy is and who also don't understand evolution.
The evidence strongly supports branching descent from common ancestors for most taxa.
Too nebulous to be of any use. No one knows what pattern universal common descent would produce. What is a fact is it wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy, which is strictly a man-made classification scheme, ie purely artificial. Universal common descent cannot be modeled as we have no idea how to model it. We don't even know where to start.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Do you believe that everything that exists is reducible to stochastic events? The trajectory of the Earth around the Sun is not stochastic. Silver Asiatic: If not, where did the non-chance elements come from and what, precisely are they? None of that is necessary to support our claim, or to contradict your original statement that “One of the many reasons why the claim {of common descent} cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship.” Silver Asiatic: There’s no way to distinguish that evidence from designed similarity through multiple lines of descent. The evidence strongly supports branching descent from common ancestors for most taxa.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

What it means is that the nested hierarchy is evidence of common descent, whether designed or not.
There's no way to distinguish that evidence from designed similarity through multiple lines of descent.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Zach Do you believe that everything that exists is reducible to stochastic events? If so, you'd need to model the creation of a sophisticated process of replication and inheritance from a purely stochastic state. If not, where did the non-chance elements come from and what, precisely are they? If you agree with me that they come from Intelligent Design, then you'd need to incorporate that somehow into your explanations for the origin and development of living organisms. If not, you'd need to show a purely stochastic process that can produce a nested hierarchy of self-replication and descent with modification. You can't merely start with the system. That's like ignoring the designed elements of the Roulette wheel.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of a system designed to produce that. What it means is that the nested hierarchy is evidence of common descent, whether designed or not. And more specifically, that it is evidence of common descent, even if the variations are stochastic.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: In this analogy, what are the designed aspects of evolution? It's not an analogy, but a counterexample to your statement that "you can’t present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process." Indeed, we presented stochastic elements of a designed process, Roulette, and correctly claimed Roulette as a stochastic process. You seem to be stumbling on the word "stochastic", which can mean purely random, but often means a system that includes a random element.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Zach
The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation.
I understand. The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of a system designed to produce that. You've done nothing to refute the counter claim.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

A roulette wheel is designed, but the game is stochastic.
In this analogy, what are the designed aspects of evolution? Is there a roulette wheel that randomly produces self-replication, inheritance, adaptation and descent with modification?Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: You’re starting with what you have to prove. Your statement was "One of the many reasons why the claim cannot be modeled or tested is that it relies on the assumption that sequence similarity indicates a genealogical relationship." The response is that a nested hierarchy (not mere similarity) is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation. Silver Asiatic: You did nothing to distinguish that from a designed system that shows the same results. The claim is that a nested hierarchy is a consequence of branching descent and stochastic variation.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Zach
In any case, this returns us to your original statement that we can’t model common descent because it relies on a similarity.
You did nothing to distinguish that from a designed system that shows the same results. You have to demonstrate the origin of the system.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that organisms have “generations”, mutation rates and that mutations fix in populations (we even know the rate).
We don't know the rate as the equations have never been verified.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: The process itself needs to be random – the way chemical molecules randomly align to form living cells. Zach: Where did you get that idea? Chemical molecules do not randomly align, though there is a stochastic element in their movements.
You're saying that the transition from non-living chemicals to chemical organisms is not random?Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

wd400
You guys crack me up. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that organisms have “generations”, mutation rates and that mutations fix in populations (we even know the rate).
You're starting with what you have to prove. You start with a system of replication and inheritance and then say that the system produces replication and inheritance. I say that's a designed system, not stochastic. Now, to prove that wrong, you need to explain the origin of the system. Show me a stochastic chemical process that produces a pattern of hierarchical descent with modification. You want to exclude that problem by starting with "life" but as I said, that's an artificial distinction. Life is merely a chemical formulation. So, you need to show the stochastic process of chemicals that produces replication with inheritance.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

You determined a “generation” and a mutation rate and mutation value and some reason why mutations are retained in future generations.
You guys crack me up. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that organisms have "generations", mutation rates and that mutations fix in populations (we even know the rate).wd400_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Family trees are examples of branching descent and Zachriel has admitted tat family trees do not form a nested hierarchy. Zachriel also said that a patriLINEAGE forms a nested hierarchy but that was soundly refuted by an expert. But facts do not deter losers and so we have Zachriel continuing to spew its nonsense. Zachriel, a fine example of the deluded masses who accept evolutionism.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
It turns out that living organisms replicate with variation. We showed that if the variation is stochastic, such a branching process will form a nested hierarchy.
You don't know what a nested hierarchy is. So please shut up.
It’s not mere similarity, but a nested hierarchy, the expected result of branching descent.
You are a deluded and pathological liar.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: You determined a “generation” and a mutation rate and mutation value and some reason why mutations are retained in future generations. Yes. It turns out that living organisms replicate with variation. We showed that if the variation is stochastic, such a branching process will form a nested hierarchy. This contradicts your claim that stochastic processes can't form a nested hierarchy. Silver Asiatic: you can’t present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process. A roulette wheel is designed, but the game is stochastic. In any case, this returns us to your original statement that we can't model common descent because it relies on a similarity. It's not mere similarity, but a nested hierarchy, the expected result of branching descent. Silver Asiatic: The process itself needs to be random – the way chemical molecules randomly align to form living cells. Where did you get that idea? Chemical molecules do not randomly align, though there is a stochastic element in their movements.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Zach That's a designed process. You determined a "generation" and a mutation rate and mutation value and some reason why mutations are retained in future generations. As I said, you can't present stochastic elements of a designed process and claim that as a stochastic process. The process itself needs to be random - the way chemical molecules randomly align to form living cells. That's where you have to start. There's no branching in that process - it's stochastic.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Zachriel proves that it doesn't understand the concept of nested hierarchies. Family trees are examples of branching descent and Zachriel has admitted tat family trees do not form a nested hierarchy. Zachriel also said that a patriLINEAGE forms a nested hierarchy but that was soundly refuted by an expert. But facts do not deter losers and so we have Zachriel continuing to spew its nonsense.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

StephenB - thank you. The classic formulation you gave is surprisingly useful -- and, you're right, very important.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns. Here's a simple example of a stochastic process, given branching descent.
Start with a null string ,,,,,,,,, In each generation, for each member of the population, create an offspring that has a random mutation with a random letter. This is a typical result.
Generation 0 ,,,,,,,, Generation 1 ,,,,,,,, ,T,,,,,, Generation 2 ,,,,,,,, ,,,,J,,, ,T,,,,,, ,TT,,,,, Generation 3 ,,,,,,,, ,,T,,,,, ,,,,J,,, ,,,NJ,,, ,T,,,,,, ,T,,,,J, ,TT,,,,, ,TS,,,,,
Notice how they form a nested hierarchy, and we can reconstruct the ancestry from the descendents. We can add other features, such as limiting population, but the results will be much the same.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Zach
That is absolutely incorrect, as can be easily shown. It’s the branching process that creates the nested pattern.
This is why I referred to a stochastic process. We can't look at a subset of a designed process and declare that to be random since it's the result of design. If evolution is a stochastic process then it has to include the supposed random creation of self-replicating molecules. The distinction between living and non-living entities is artificial amd irrelevant. If the first living cells were designed by God, then replication is non-stochastic. We've seen no evidence that a stochastic process can produce self-replicating cells - which are a necessary requirement for any branching and descent tree structures. So again, stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies and in the evolutionary context, it's impossible to model a purely stochastic process without introducing intelligently designed assumptions (modelling a process itself brings intelligently-designed decisions into the analysis).Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
That is absolutely incorrect, as can be easily shown.
Show it. Your bluff is called.
It’s the branching process that creates the nested pattern.
Nonsense. Nested patterns can be replicated as a branching process but branching processes do not produce a nested pattern. You are either really ignorant or very dishonest.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns. That is absolutely incorrect, as can be easily shown. It's the branching process that creates the nested pattern.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic
The power of the mechanism needs to be equivalent (or greater than) the effect it produces.
Beautifully expressed--and correct. It is a creative and informative way of expressing the one truth that makes all the difference: Every effect requires a proportional cause.StephenB_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Stochastic processes do not form containment hierarchies which are sophisticated and complex patterns. There are many examples of hierarchies in the design context. The power of the mechanism needs to be equivalent (or greater than) the effect it produces. The proposed evolutionary mechanisms are primative and blind - relying on accidents and copy errors to produce function. As discussed on the epigenetics threads, evolution struggles to explain uni-dimensional, linear change, when living organisms show mulit-level relationships and increasing complexity. As we discover more complexity and sophistication in organisms, the evolutionary mechanisms have not changed to meet the greater challenges. It is difficult to support the claim that mutation and selection are adequate for one level of change. When the requirement for more complex change was discovered (epigenetics, molecular machines, human neurology) the same mechanisms are claimed to be able to achieve a much more complex and precise result. Genetic drift is not even a mechanism as such, and is certainly more primitive and less powerful than the Darwinian mechanism. If there was no branching hierarchical tree it would not be evidence against evolution since distinction between species could be blurred or lost. [edit - constrained hierarchies can be found in series of artifacts as a design feature]. Aside from all of that, common descent is built on the assumption that genomic similaries are evidence of descent, when it is known that the same or even identical DNA can generate different, inhereted functions depending on environmental conditions. Evolutionary theory absent a theory on the origin of the first self-replicating molecules is incomplete since the power and capability of replication can only be known from its origin. In the case of abiogenesis, the properties of living organisms need to be traced back to non-living chemical substances.Silver Asiatic_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

the evidence equally supports common design.
Artifacts generally do *not* form containment hierarchies, but can be arranged in many equally logical ways.
COMMON DESIGN- learn how to read and try to respond to what was actually posted. Evolution is too complex to produce a containment hierarchy. Even Darwin knew that.Virgil Cain_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply