How Darwinian Logic Works

_{Gil Dodgen

October 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In this post we discover: According to Darwinian theory, new species emerge when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from…

This statement, and so many like them, reveal how Darwinian “logic” is based primarily upon hyper-imaginative speculation, and not anything that could be described as science. Here’s how Darwinian logic works:

Given #1: A certain feature of a living system exists. (Let’s try a trivial example, like Mozart’s ability to write symphonies.)
Given #2: Since this feature exists, it must have a survival advantage.
Given #3: Since it is known (scientifically) that Darwinian mechanisms can explain everything about the history of life, there must have been a gradual pathway such that random mutations and natural selection could turn a microbe into Mozart. How could this not be obvious?

The ID proponent challenges the Darwinist with some obvious questions:

Which random mutations would be required to turn a microbe into Mozart? How long would this take? What is the probability that these beneficial mutations could take place, and what is the probability that they could be fixed in the population with the available reproductive and probabilistic resources? What about the fact that the simplest living cell is the most sophisticated and functionally-integrated information-processing system ever discovered?

The universal and entirely predictable Darwinist response to such challenges:

Are you a religious fanatic who wants to destroy science?

Comments

Petrushka: Just to explain. The establishment of the primary antibody repertoire has nothing to do with "evolution". It is an intelligent algorithm to cover a big (but not huge) search space at low level, through targeted RV applied to very functional genes. In this way, some essential information is multiplied thorough RV plus a very specific algorithm. The search space of epitopes is big, but not huge, epitope length usually being 5 - 20 AAs. Still, that space cannot be efficiently covered even by the efficient algorithm embedded in the immune system, and the result is a low level coverage. That's why the process of antibody maturation after the primary response is necessary. And that process is driven by the specific epitope information stored in Antigen Presenting Cells.gpuccio_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio I was not responding to your request for a detailed description of the evolution of protein domains. I was just responding to your request for an example of a paper which gives a detailed hypothesis about the evolution of hemoglobin. Do you accept this is an example? Can you give me any example of any ID paper which comes close to this in trying to provide detail which can be assessed?markf_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

That is brilliantly achieved by a procedure which couples random variation to a small repertoire of genes, resulting in the only relevant systematic somatic modification of genetic structure in multicellular organisms, and in a basic “blind” repertoire of antibody specificities that cover quite well the search space of epitopes, altough with low level specificity. ... I could not think of a more intelligently designed, integrated, complex, efficient, purposeful system.
In other words there is no better way to evolve than by producing a blind repertoire of variants that cover the immediately adjacent search space. I think I get it.Petrushka_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I could just answer: why should I think that a FUCA, different from LUCA, ever existed? One can think any possible thing. The fact remains that we have scientific reasons to believe in the existence of LUCA, to localize it on time, and to make models of what it was (essentially, a prokaryote), and of which proteins allowed it to exist and live. About FUCA, we have absolutely nothing. So, you can think what you like, but I don't like to think about and believe in things that very likely never existed.gpuccio_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: The immune system is a bery intelligently designed system, with a lot of obvious targets. I will point to you the two main obvious targets of the system: a) Establishing a low affinity basic repertoire of antibodies to recognize possible antigenes in the future life of the organism. That is brilliantly achieved by a procedure which couples random variation to a small repertoire of genes, resulting in the only relevant systematic somatic modification of genetic structure in multicellular organisms, and in a basic "blind" repertoire of antibody specificities that cover quite well the search space of epitopes, altough with low level specificity. b) Transforming the low affinity antibodies of the primary immuine response into high affinity molecules. That is accomplished through a very sophisticated algorithm that couples RV targeted to the existing specificity (selected in the primary immune response), to intelligent selection where the random results are measured for their affinity to the memorized epitope, and selectively stimulated or suppressed accordingly. I could not think of a more intelligently designed, integrated, complex, efficient, purposeful system.gpuccio_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Mark: Reality check: the paper is about 3 (three!) adaptative mutations. It has nothing to do with the emergence of the globin domain, which was (and always has been, as you should well know) my issue. I refer you to my post 3.1.1.1.3 to Eugene, in this thread. Please read it. I copy here the relevant part for your convenience: "The obvious is that new protein information emerges suddenly in the course of natural history, after having emerged much more suddenly and in huige quantities at OOL. The obvious is that such information changes gradually in the course of natural history, probably because of neutral evolution, while retaining the same function. The obvious is that in other cases the same basci information is tweaked and adapted to generate families of slightly different functions. We have to keep those facts well separated. The emergence of new basic information cannot be explained by darwinist theory. There can be no possible doubt about that. It is the best tool to trace important design events, and to investigate their modalities: time distribution, and possibly ways of implementation (guided mutations, or intelligent selection, or both), the existence of intermediaries, and so on. We must try to understand if the differences between the same functional proteins in far species are due only to neutral evolution in the island of functionality, or if they have a functional value. We have to better define the informational thresholds of minor protein evolution within families, which is potentially in an intermediate range, and could be explained in principle by both RV and NS and design." So, I ask again, where are the detailed models about the original evolution of new basic protein domains?gpuccio_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Well, biochemistry, basically, and molecular genetics. But I'm glad that you are prepared to accept the evidence for a mutation, however caused.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Can you show me where creationists predicted reproductive isolation, and explain to me what they means for that matter?
That is in the Bible. As for moving- how do YOU think geographic isolation happens? A glacier moves too slowly to split a population. Perhaps a flash-flood would work. Plants move via their pollen and seeds. Microbes move on the backs of animals. That said if we have one population and some in that population become adapted to one thing , while others remain adapted to something else, then we can have sympatric speciation due to the differing adaptations. Then one part of teh population could possibly outprerform the others.Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

What, do you want me to write a genetic algorithm taht will accomplish this? Dawkins showed the power of a targeted search using cumulative selection- as have others.Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

No one said every change has to be designed. ID does not exclude darwinian mechanisms and it does not exclude random effects. Also the hypotheses have nothing to do with blind and undirected chemical processes and again ID is not anti-evolution.Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Why would we think all mutations are due to blind and undirected chemical processes? I will tell you why- an a priori world-view that refuses to allow design.Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Every change might be designed - but there has to be some reason for supposing this. The paper hypotheses the exact mutations, their order, roughly when they happened and the resulting advantage. There is no requirement for more than a single point mutation at any point to get the resulting advantage. What more could you possibly ask? Does anything in ID even come remotely close to this. Note that this one of hundreds (maybe thousands) of papers on hemoglobin evolution.markf_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

"Mutation" means a "change". Perhaps the mutation was designed. Why would we think so?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

It could be a design feature and not a mutation...Joseph_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio Well about this for an example: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n6/abs/ng.574.html To quote from the abstract: We have genetically retrieved, resurrected and performed detailed structure-function analyses on authentic woolly mammoth hemoglobin to reveal for the first time both the evolutionary origins and the structural underpinnings of a key adaptive physiochemical trait in an extinct species. Hemoglobin binds and carries O2; however, its ability to offload O2 to respiring cells is hampered at low temperatures, as heme deoxygenation is inherently endothermic (that is, hemoglobin-O2 affinity increases as temperature decreases). We identify amino acid substitutions with large phenotypic effect on the chimeric ?/?-globin subunit of mammoth hemoglobin that provide a unique solution to this problem and thereby minimize energetically costly heat loss. I don't see how you could ask for anything more specific. The actual mutation and the resulting advantage.markf_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Mark: Well how about heomoglobin? There are any number of papers with hypotheses about the how it evolved. That was, explicitly, in response to my: "I would really like to see the “detailed hypotheses” you speak of. Most evolutionary hypotheses are just about lines of descent, without any trace of causal explanation." Well, ScottAndrews has just shown an example of paper that goes beyond my wildest dreams of what a "gross unscientific fairy tale" can be. Would you call that a "detailed hypothesis". I suppose that calling it a "just so story" would still be a gross understatement! So, as you are certainly a serious interlocutor, would you please suggest one paper about hemoglobin evolution that falsifies my statement (I repeat iy for your convenience): ""I would really like to see the “detailed hypotheses” you speak of. Most evolutionary hypotheses are just about lines of descent, without any trace of causal explanation." As you say that there are "any number" of such papers about the evolution of hemoglobin, it should not be difficult.gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Ok, cool. Can you break it down a bit more?Timbo_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Just, for the record, do you now see that the quote that started this conversation was about adaptation? Can you show me the evidence that "if I am not adapted for one environment I just move to another where I am and establish another population"? Can you tell me how plants and microbes achieve this feet? Can you show me where such a process is part of mainstream evolutionary biology, which is what I presume you mean when you say "standard evolutionary propaganda" and the claim that the scenario I described is about "adaptation". (It doesn't need to be, if glaciation separates a population they become reproductively isolated without moving...) Can you show me where creationists predicted reproductive isolation, and explain to me what they means for that matter?wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

OK, you have an opinion. Shapiro also thinks genomic mutations increase due to environmental stress. He likens it to the immune system. However, the immune system does not have foresight. It does not produce variations targeted to need. I would suggest that ID advocates need to find some evidence that mutations and recombinations are skewed in favor of meeting needs.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

I haven't found anything regarding my speculation about origin of "recent" domains. Most of that is behind paywalls. But I notice that in metazoa there's less than one new domain every two million years. How again are we supposed to witness one of these events? The overall rate of invention is about one every 12 million years. Fairly lethargic for a designer.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

b) It is perfectly true, however, that details of design implementation can certainly be the object of scientific research, once ID is accepted as best explanation, or at least as possible explanation.
Wouldn't it be more effective to focus on the details of the design implementation since it would bolster acceptance as best explanation? I think for many it's the lack of these details that make ID unconvincing. In the end isn't science as much about the "how" as the "what"?woodford_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Timbo:
I would love to see ID offer an explanation for how this (microbe to Mozart) happened.
A targeted search would sufficeJoseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Yes mutations happen to individuals, and it’s individuals that compete with each other. But individuals are in populations, and this, populations evolve as a result of those processes. individuals can’t evolve for obvious reasons.
Individuals can evolve- evolution by conact, as in prions. Not only that if one individual has a different allele than the rest of the population then that individual is an evolved individual within that population. Populations can't evolve for obvous reasons.
Even in the absence of any selective pressures, new mutations will fix at rate of muatation
It is still very unlikely for any mutation to become fixed- that's reality for ya. And natural selection is still an oxymoron. 2- Adaptation can and does lead to speciation. Ya see if I am not adapted for one environment I just move to another where I am and establish another population
Well, I’d like to see evidence for this.
That's the standard evolutionary propaganda. 3- How do you think new species arise, that is according to Darwinism or neo-darwinism?
I really think you guys should drop the Darwin Tourette Syndrome.
EVOLUTIONISTS use it! Are you really that obtuse?
Populations stop sharing genes with each other, as a result changes in population A don’t effect population B and they are free to evolve away from each other.
Yes, as I said- one population moves to an area that better suits them. Adaptation.
The prevailing (but not only) view is that the reproductive isolation is usually a result of geographical isolation.
Creationsits predicted reproductive isolation and again adaptation leads to geographical isolation.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Yes, organisms adapt by changing their behaviour, also, sometimes their physiology.
Behaviour is something they can do now and by themnselves.
Populations adapt by means of natural selection.
Natural selection is a result and only a minor player.
One trait that may be selected is the ability of individuals to adapt.
By changing their behaviour? What if they were designed to adapt by changing their behaviour?
Give me an example of a useful multi-part system that you think can’t evolve.
There isn't any evidence taht blind and undirected processes can produce any. ya see that is how science operates-> via positive evidence and you just don't have any.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

3.1.1.1.3 GPuccio, Much appreciated. It makes a lot of sense.Eugene S_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you haven't persuaded me as yet that evolution is not story telling but science...Eugene S_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Yes, organisms adapt by changing their behaviour, also, sometimes their physiology. Populations adapt by means of natural selection. One trait that may be selected is the ability of individuals to adapt. So if the tendency to tan in the sun, or to startle at surprise, both of which have genetic underpinnings, have selective advantage, the alleles that promote them will tend to become more prevalent.
That said there isn’t anything we have ever observed that supports your claims that blind and undirected processes can construct new, useful multi-part systems.
Give me an example of a useful multi-part system that you think can't evolve.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

"Which random mutations would be required to turn a microbe into Mozart? How long would this take? What is the probability that these beneficial mutations could take place, and what is the probability that they could be fixed in the population with the available reproductive and probabilistic resources?" I would love to see ID offer an explanation for how this (microbe to Mozart) happened.Timbo_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Joseph. 1- The “populations evolve” is nonsense. Natural selection is an individual thing. Mutations happen to individuals. OTOH populations tend to stifle change, unless there is some very strong (selective) pressure. Yes mutations happen to individuals, and it's individuals that compete with each other. But individuals are in populations, and this, populations evolve as a result of those processes. individuals can't evolve for obvious reasons. Even in the absence of any selective pressures, new mutations will fix at rate of muatation (that's Kimura for ya) so change is actually the background against which all evolutionary pressures are playing out. Add selection to that and things will change more quickly 2- Adaptation can and does lead to speciation. Ya see if I am not adapted for one environment I just move to another where I am and establish another population Well, I'd like to see evidence for this. Or that something maladaptive in one environment is likely to be adaptive in a another. Adaptation might play a role in speciation, but I don't know of any evidence for this sort of thing. 3- How do you think new species arise, that is according to Darwinism or neo-darwinism? I really think you guys should drop the Darwin Tourette Syndrome. Darwin's theory of speciation was wrong, and the leading modern theory of speciation is quite un-darwinian. Populations stop sharing genes with each other, as a result changes in population A don't effect population B and they are free to evolve away from each other. In time the differences that accrue during this reproductive isolation are such that if they were to be reunited that wouldn't fall back into each other and we call those species. The prevailing (but not only) view is that the reproductive isolation is usually a result of geographical isolation. Tha changes that keep species apart from each other might be the result of adaptation, but don't have to be.wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

In evolution "blind" means without foresight or any sight at all- no purpose, no plan and undirected means what you said. You seem to forget behaviour- that is much easier to change than waiting around for some undirected change to occur that may help you do better. That is how organisms best adapt, by changing their BEHAVIOUR, not their genes. That said there isn't anything we have ever observed that supports your claims that blind and undirected processes can construct new, useful multi-part systems.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply