If traits can jump between the branches of the tree of life, classical Darwinism is dead

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 4, 2022

horizontal gene transfer, Intelligent Design}

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

We all must play the game of life with the cards we’re dealt, so the common aphorism goes. In biology, this means organisms must compete through natural selection with the genes and anatomy they were born with. But the saying is a lie. Okay, it’s not exactly a lie, but modern research suggests that the game of life is far more complicated than we had anticipated. There are opportunities to swap cards and even steal other players’ hands. …
Examples of acquired metabolisms abound in nature. Some are familiar, like the microbes in a cow’s gut that enable it to digest cellulose. Others are more common but less well-known. For instance, consider the symbiotic fungi that help plants source minerals from the soil. And then there are truly unusual acquired metabolisms, like sea slugs that steal chloroplasts from their food so they can photosynthesize.
University of California – Santa Barbara, “What happens when traits jump between branches of the tree of life” at ScienceDaily (May 3, 2022)

It’s called horizontal gene transfer.

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

Comments

But can’t the same be said about plate tectonics and mountain formation, canyon formation, the tidal locking of celestial bodies and numerous other phenomenon that occur over very long time frames?
You are using the plasticity model. That happens under the four forces of physics. What has to be explained in life is infinitely more complicated. By the way ID has no problem with plate tectonics etc..jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

My question now is when ID, in whatever way it does, creates a change that counts as an origin, does it do so by purposely changing genetic structure rather than genetic structure change by regular mutation? It would seem to me that those big changes must include big changes in genes, so the question is not whether genetics is involved but rather what causes the genetic changes. Would you agree with any or all of that?
No one knows. People can speculate on how an intelligence might do it. There is the issue where does the information for body plans lie. It does seem that it is not in the genome. I suggest you read Stephen Blume on his epiphany from believer in natural evolution to skeptic. There are many unanswered questions. The big one - what decides where each cell type is placed during gestation. That is where the changes have to be made. It does not seem to be in the genome.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Jerry: But if you read any textbook on evolution, it will spend nearly all its pages on micro evolution and just speculate on the other origins offering no proof.
But can’t the same be said about plate tectonics and mountain formation, canyon formation, the tidal locking of celestial bodies and numerous other phenomenon that occur over very long time frames?JHolo_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Jerry beating strawmen to a pulp. ;)Fred Hickson_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

So you are saying that tier 4 Darwinism has been active throughout the history of life within species, but can't account for the class of changes you call origins, such as new organs, body plans, and species. I think that is what you are saying. My question now is when ID, in whatever way it does, creates a change that counts as an origin, does it do so by purposely changing genetic structure rather than genetic structure change by regular mutation? It would seem to me that those big changes must include big changes in genes, so the question is not whether genetics is involved but rather what causes the genetic changes. Would you agree with any or all of that?Viola Lee_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

that mutations and natural selection have not played a role in tiers 2 and 3?
Not in origins! There were certainly species then just as now. They had offspring which were governed by the rules of genetics. In other words tier4 always existed from the beginning of life. But the other origins which are the essence of the debate, no. No mechanism yet discovered can explain the origins of the complexity especially when it had to happen almost simultaneously. For a long while, the concept of plasticity was popular. This just said small physical changes added up over time to very different physical change as if a plastic was slowly being remolded by the environment. However, these physical changes involved the changes to astronomically complicated coding and the idea of plasticity has faded. No one understood the complexity of the cell let alone the complicated systems necessary to live. So they assumed simplicity and change was not that difficult.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

So are you saying, Jerry, that mutations and natural selection have not played a role in tiers 2 and 3?Viola Lee_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

So, can you explain what you mean by Darwinism, and why it has nothing to do with Evolution?
There is a debate on how life changed in the last 3.5 billion years. I laid out that debate in terms of four different phases of change. The debate separates the first tier (origin of life) from the rest and says this is a different issue. Primarily because Darwin separated it out. So be it. Call it anything you want but it is still a change involving an origin, this time the first life. The other three tiers have all been discussed under the term, “evolution” but they are very different from each other. Tiers 2 and 3 are about the origin of new complex systems and I distinguished them based on the complexity of these systems. I’m sure there could be a better classification. This is what the Evolution debate is about. What caused these changes/origins? Tier4 are just small changes within a species and called micro evolution and is essentially the same thing as the science of genetics. This is where Darwinian processes have been observed and which poses no issue for ID. But if you read any textbook on evolution, it will spend nearly all its pages on micro evolution and just speculate on the other origins offering no proof. So Darwinism only applies to tier4 and is not part of any dispute. One can argue that Darwin’s ideas are great design and part of the design of life. Now Darwin and everyone of his day knew nothing about the complexity of life. That has only emerged over the last 160 years especially the last 60 years. So he speculated and got a lot of things wrong which many want to also call Darwinism but the part in #1 is valid. So did a lot of others who then made some very devastating decisions based on this lack of knowledge.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

I read your old post, Jerry. Under Evolution you include the origin of life, the transition from one cell to multi-cell organisms and then more complex organs, speciation, and then variation within species due to genetic mutations and natural selection, this latter being Darwinism. That pretty covers the whole history of life. So above you write, "An obvious one is Darwinian change has nothing to do with Evolution," but in your post you include Darwinism in tier 4, so it has something to do with Evolution, it would seem you are saying. So, can you explain what you mean by Darwinism, and why it has nothing to do with Evolution?Viola Lee_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

how would you define evolution?
There is no common definition of the word "evolution." Which is why I use the term "Evolution." I capitalize the E to emphasize what the debate is about. Here is a definition of evolution with a small e.
What is the best definition of evolution? evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics.
Absolutely true and describes genetics perfectly but is not Evolution. Also - allele change has been a common definition but is trivial. To understand the Evolution debate here is something I wrote on this website 16 years ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952 This could be better organized and rewritten a little but is "spot on!" Darwinian change is just micro evolution or what is better known as genetics. So whenever you see Darwin and evolution linked just think genetics and you will be right. I have been making the same points for 16 years and no one has said that they are not correct. They are just ignored.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, egg-laying, toothless (in adults), poison-spurred (in males, glucagon, anti-insulin venom similar to that in a Gila monster), aquatic mammal (non-placental, non-marsupial) with a sixth (electrosensory) organ and waterproof fur that’s found only in Australia. It has scent glands on the sides of its neck and stores fat in its tail. This Frankenstein creature’s genome is supposedly as bizarre as its phenome.
“This genome provides a unique perspective on what the genomes of our earliest mammalian ancestors may have looked like. It is fascinating that what we think of as being reptile-like and mammal-like features can co-exist in the same genome.” - Dr. Adam Felsenfeld, head of NHGRI's Comparative and Sequencing Analysis Program.
Gosh, now how did reptile-like and mammal-like features come to co-exist in the same genome? I just mention this to elicit the usual COULDA MIGHTA MUSTA science fiction responses typical of Darwinist apologists. -QQuerius_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Without clarity of definition it sounded like "evolution has nothing to do with evolution".Silver Asiatic_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Jerry, how would you define evolution? I'm confused about what some of our distinctions mean, so could you clarify what evolution means to you. Thanks.Viola Lee_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

The Darwinian tree of life was proposed as evidence for common ancestry (as nested hierarchy) and for molecules-to-man evolution. New features, supposedly, could be traced by mutational paths. Common morphology meant ancestry as did genetic similarity. So, if the tree of life of supposed nested hierarchy is destroyed, then evidence for neo-Darwinism is weakened. Non-ancestral species can have the same morphology.Silver Asiatic_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Is this you agreeing with me
You are just repeating what I have said many times before. So are you just repeating me? Will you continue to speak the obvious? An obvious one is Darwinian change has nothing to do with Evolution. One obvious proof is that it is self refuting.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Jerry: In fact #1 is absolutely right on. So the comment about what Darwin knew is Irrelevant!
Is this you agreeing with me. Quick, pass me the smelling salts. :)JHolo_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Interesting phenomenon - have humans adapted to believe things that are not true? It seems that way. What one believes is based mainly on emotions. Does that mean our emotions are a survivability characteristic and generally can recognize threats but not necessarily truth? If the truth/falsity of something is threatening to our safety we seem to have no problem. But if it has no immediate bearing will we be much less likely to recognize what is right and good?jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Why do you beat this dead horse?
Because it is true.
Darwin knew nothing about function of this “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance
Neither did Mendel. Both Darwin’s and Mendel’s ideas led somewhere and thus relevant. In fact #1 is absolutely right on. So the comment about what Darwin knew is Irrelevant! Beating up on Darwin is fruitless. Diminishing the importance of his ideas is not. jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s ideas of changes as outlined in #1 are well validated.It’s basic genetics.
Why do you beat this dead horse? Darwin knew nothing about function of this "microscopic lump of jelly-like substance ", how the cell was perceived back then. If a man who knows nothing about computers says that he thinks that computers work because of the qualities of the screen that doesn't make him the father of processors, just an witness of something he observed but didn't understand .Sandy_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

so many flaws with Darwin
Actually not. Darwin’s ideas of changes as outlined in #1 are well validated. It’s basic genetics. So why is UD obsessed with genetics since Darwinian change has nothing to do with Evolution? Is it because they don’t understand Darwinian change? By definition and logic Darwinian change has nothing to do with Evolution. It is self refuting. So why the constant stoking of the fires. Is it to get comments? That’s not working because most OP’s mentioning Darwin get little reaction. Aside: we had an OP on HGT a couple weeks ago. All was covered then.jerry_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Another nail in the coffin. There are so many flaws with Darwin that the coffin has more nails than wood.BobRyan_{May 5, 2022
May
05
May
5
05
2022
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Great writing by Harrison Tasoff, who deserves a proper byline. HGT might be easier to handle if we think of it as metanutrition. We eat things to give us energy and to build proteins with our existing functions. AND we eat things to gain new functions.polistra_{May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Sorry, but classical Darwinism is just natural selection operating on heritable traits. Where these heritable traits originated was never addressed in classical Darwinism. Just that they had to arise.JHolo_{May 4, 2022
May
05
May
4
04
2022
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply