Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In other words, phylogenetic reconstruction is sheer fantasy …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s some research done 100 miles down the road from me. Note the sentence highlighted. The actual phylogenies here were experimentally known and yet standard evolutionary theory drew completely wrong conclusions. Oh, but it was a small population, small genomes, and intense selection pressure. Spare me.

“Exceptional Convergent Evolution in a Virus”
Bull JJ, Badgett MR, Wichman HA, Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM, Gulati A, Ho C, Molineux IJ.
Department of Zoology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin 78712, USA. bull@bull.zo.utexas.edu

Replicate lineages of the bacteriophage phiX 174 adapted to growth at high temperature on either of two hosts exhibited high rates of identical, independent substitutions. Typically, a dozen or more substitutions accumulated in the 5.4-kilobase genome during propagation. Across the entire data set of nine lineages, 119 independent substitutions occurred at 68 nucleotide sites. Over half of these substitutions, accounting for one third of the sites, were identical with substitutions in other lineages. Some convergent substitutions were specific to the host used for phage propagation, but others occurred across both hosts. Continued adaptation of an evolved phage at high temperature, but on the other host, led to additional changes that included reversions of previous substitutions. Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data. Replicate lineages subjected to similar environmental challenges showed similar rates of substitution and similar rates of fitness improvement across corresponding times of adaptation. Substitution rates and fitness improvements were higher during the initial period of adaptation than during a later period, except when the host was changed.

PMID: 9409816 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Comments
Pav #147 Thanks. I have no intention of participating on any thread which cultivates Alan Fox and attempts to reason with him. It is quite impossible. If you would like to further discuss this matter you are welcome to do it on my weblog. I have littrle more to offer here.JohnADavison
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
"Now, be positive, and devise an experiment which will demonstrate your mechanism in action, the mysterious designer designing." Why do we need to resort to an "experiment to determine mechanism of action" as prove? Isn't coming to understand nature through observation doing science? Certainly it must. We can discuss differences as well as the connection between things. A young man can stand on the street corner and say "I am just a mammal". Ask him "what is a mammal" he might say a type of animal. And then we pat him on the back and think he really knows science. He knows nothing and is clueless. Those who teach the theory of evolution are terrorist that strike at the freedom of the mind.Tim AJ
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Upright Biped: Yet, these questions you simply passed on. One might think that since these questions are at the very heart of the childish design argument, and further, that “naturalists have to explain (these) mechanisms in detail” then a explanation would be just a brief google away. Is that the case, or is it not the case? What you're asking is for detailed descriptions of things that are current areas of research. The natural explanations must be given in the year 2008, because biological research, presumably, should be complete in that year. If not given, the intelligent designer of the gaps has "evidence". The same with the paper you refer to. Lots of talk about gaps in current knowledge, then, for "null hypotheses", read "natural explanations not yet available, so god is in the gaps." None of this is positive evidence for intelligent design. As I pointed out to Joseph, what we don't know at any particular time does not = intelligent design. Now, be positive, and devise an experiment which will demonstrate your mechanism in action, the mysterious designer designing. This can be done for mutation, selection and drift, as you know.iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Icon, "But I can study the designer, and it appears that he’s exempt from your own arguments, so at least we know something about him." Really, you can. I am interested in knowing how. Please tell us how you can study the designer. Also, please tell us what arguments he is exempt from. The arguments I have made are based on the patterns observed in DNA, please tell us what in Abel's analysis are applicable to the designer so that we may then know how he is immune to them. Please be specific.
It appears that naturalists have to explain their mechanisms in detail, what they are and how they work, but I.D. is exempt. How convenient.
Really? Earlier I asked for any conceptual narrative (not even the finer details) you could give whereby: 1)chance can coordinate function within the nucleic sequence from disparate results scattered along the nucleic chain? 2)material explanation can account for how the ribosome comes to “know” the convention within the genetic code, or even what the stop codon means? 3)a plausible explanation is made for RV+NS to cause the integrated information necessary for functioning cecal vales to suddenly appear in the genome of the Adriatic lizards in less that 30 generations? Yet, these questions you simply passed on. One might think that since these questions are at the very heart of the childish design argument, and further, that "naturalists have to explain (these) mechanisms in detail" then a explanation would be just a brief google away. Is that the case, or is it not the case?
I’ve explained that I do not see complexity as evidence of design, and that I do not regard incomplete biological knowledge as evidence of a designer of the gaps. There is no evidence.
Yes Icon, you have made yourself abundantly clear. You have used words like complexity, information, and intelligence is a recognizable manner - rather like swatting flys away from your picnic sandwich. Perhaps if you had demonstrated (even momentarily) the kind of personal sovereignty required to challenge your own position, then your swatting would have seemed more credible. But not to worry, you can start at any time. Please point to any paragraph in the peer-reviewed research I posted that you take issue with. Given your position and the depth of belief you give it, there should be more than a sufficient supply of arguments and counter evidence.Upright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Upright Biped: This is where you are wrong: ID cannot study the designer, however, that does not erase the observable artifacts of agency. But I can study the designer, and it appears that he's exempt from your own arguments, so at least we know something about him. It appears that naturalists have to explain their mechanisms in detail, what they are and how they work, but I.D. is exempt. How convenient. I would have enjoyed it if you ACTUALLY addresses the evidence instead of flanking with The Designer mumbo, but, whatever. I've explained that I do not see complexity as evidence of design, and that I do not regard incomplete biological knowledge as evidence of a designer of the gaps. There is no evidence. Not to worry though, we’ve seen this evasion before. I can't evade an invisible unknowable mechanism of biology. It evades us. Cheers…. Cheers to you too, and may your mechanism of the gaps go with you.iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
#163 Alan Fox:
Evidence of agency can be found in irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Now to refute that inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
Are you serious? All we have to do to refute irreducible complexity and CSI, which you have so far not defined and which rationalists suggest is an empty set, is to demonstrate they occur naturally?
No, I don't think he's saying to demonstrate that they occur naturally, as in that they occur in nature, but that they originated naturally. Specifically, that it is probable that the information originated naturally. Maybe I don't understand your perplexion...uoflcard
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
#159 Joseph: Emphasis added
Evidence of agency can be found in irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Now to refute that inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
I disagree with the use of the word "can" in that statement. Because even demonstrating a possible pathway would refute that argument for intelligent agency, regardless of whether it actually happened that way. It is POSSIBLE that all of the chemicals for the first organism were all in the same place at the same time, and just happened to assemble at the precise moment (no, I know that is not what is believed to have happened by naturalists, but at least it is a KNOWN possible route). It is also POSSIBLE that in one early organism, all of the necessary proteins for the flagellum suddenly came about due to an incredibly lucky series of mutations. Basically, saltation is theoretically POSSIBLE, which means saltation is enough to falsify the proposition. The question really is DID it happen that way, or at least is it statistically probable that it happened in that way? This is what is lacking from the vast majority of just-so, imaginative evolutionary tales. I'll use the examples of the Italian Wall lizards and they're very peculiar development of cecal valves in a very shorrt period of time. If this had happened a million years ago. Let's imagine five couples of lizards were on the original island, happily hunting insects on a giant piece of driftwood on the beach, when suddenly the wood was swept to sea, and after a few days/weeks (short enough to ensure the lizard's survival...perhaps the driftwood is filled with tasty bugs to get them through the journey) ended up on the 2nd island, which is full of lush vegetation. The same thing happens...within a couple decades, the new lizard species has dominated the island, and they have larger heads, stronger bites and cecal valves in their digestive tracts. Let's say a good number of lizards from both islands were somehow preserved (including their digestive tracs) for humans of the 19th-21st centuries to discover. What would be stated as the "fact" of what happend? That one specimen of the transplanted species developed cecal valves (or it developed slowly over many generations; I don't know how complex they are), it created an advantage, however slight, and over many generations, perhaps hundreds or thousands, the trait spread through the rest of the population. Even though that's NOT how it happened, that is how it would be understood as "fact" in scientific literature. This interpretation is lacking probability and statistics to back itself up. This dawned on me when I first watched Richard Dawkins' demonstration of the possible evolutionary steps of the eye and the wing. For example, one of the first steps he mentions for the eye is a slight depression in a photosensitive patch of cells, which would give an advantage due to protection from scratches, etc. He then glosses to the next step, but wait -- what good does that really do? It would only help with glancing blows, as almost any kind of direct blow would reach the cells. What percentage of these ancient creatures are failing to reproduce (early death, sexual selection, etc.) due to glancing blows to their photosensitive patches? Another "possible" evolutionary ladder for wings I saw (on TV, not Dawkins) was flightless creatures who developed feathers, and had an advantage because they could help propel themselves up inclines (like semi-fallen trees) to escape from predators. They further and further approached flight because the more lift they could provide, the steeper the incline they could scale, the more predators they could escape. It all seems reasonable, except for actual statistics of how many of these crude birds were scaling semi-fallen trees to escape predators, and how much of a deference it really made whether they could scale a tree at a 60-degree angle and a 70-degree angle. Basically, the most important science component was left out while the imagined story became fact.uoflcard
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Icon "I’ll try to explain briefly, then you and others can tell me where I’m wrong." This is where you are wrong: ID cannot study the designer, however, that does not erase the observable artifacts of agency. I would have enjoyed it if you ACTUALLY addresses the evidence instead of flanking with The Designer mumbo, but, whatever. Not to worry though, we've seen this evasion before. Cheers....Upright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Icon "So, I propose “chemical reactions” as the catalyst for OOL" Really....you need to spend a day with Dean Kenyon.Upright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Upright Biped says: Sorry iconofld, I cannot take you seriously. Never mind, and thanks for your lengthy reply, anyway. I'll try to explain briefly, then you and others can tell me where I'm wrong. When you refer to “agency” with “volition” I’m taking it to mean that some kind of intelligent designer or designers are (or have been) involved in the life system we’re part of. To me, intelligence is a highly complex phenomenon. So, when someone like Michael Behe looks at the complex features of life on the molecular level, and implies that they require design, I’m taking it as if the “agent” must be exempt from the arguments made, because I don’t think you guys are suggesting a designer who is simpler than a bacterial flagellum. So, that’s why I suggest research aimed at finding scientific evidence for the non-natural, because, to me, all I.D. arguments imply its existence. As for biologists not yet knowing how many things work, see my “intelligent designer of the gaps” point above.iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Hello Alan, ID has offered several examples of agency, I would be truly surprised if you were not aware of them. For instance: The pattern in the sequencing of nuceoltides in DNA is an artifact of agency. They cannot have come to be the way they are by any rational narrative of chance, nor are they in any way the product of physio-dynamic necessity. An alternative explanation would be agency IF the pattern did indeed fit that explanation. You can decide for yourself. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1208958&blobtype=pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdfUpright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Before I give you a definition do you agree that (design) is something that exists? . . . Why so coy? Nothing coy, just trying be keep the discussion clear: For instance:
The word “design” exists as a noun and a verb. People design and build things . . .But just having a word does not give something existence. How can I agree something exists before you tell me what that something is?
You seem to be saying design exists and you describe it then you say you can't agree that it exists until I tell you what it is despite it being something you apparently know. So to get to the point, we agree that design exists, right?tribune7
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Evidence of agency can be found in irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Now to refute that inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
Are you serious? All we have to do to refute irreducible complexity and CSI, which you have so far not defined and which rationalists suggest is an empty set, is to demonstrate they occur naturally? I think I'll pass on that one. :)Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
#155 iconofid:
The intelligent agencies that you observe are dependent on the cellular complexity that you’re trying to explain, and are themselves far more complex than the individual cells. If I.D. is to attempt to explain “FSCI”, it cannot evoke higher levels of “FSCI” to do that. You don’t explain something by claiming that it’s a prerequisite for itself.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument you are having, but this sounds like the strawman philosophy of Dawkin's proof for why the existence of God is very unlikely. It is a materialist's interpretation of what God is, which basically amounts to a super human, an amazingly complex organism with incredible power and knowledge. But this view represents a tiny fraction of the beliefs of all theistic people on Earth. As a Chrisitian, here are just a couple reasons why I believe God is a non-physical being, a spirit (both are quotes from Jesus): John 4:24: "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Luke 24:39: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" Or are we talking about something else, like scientists conducting OOL experiments being the "intelligent agencies"?uoflcard
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Anyone able to define what FCSI is?Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
There is much more to the book than just that one page.
Sure, Joe. I am just hoping you can point me to the passages, or just an example, that you found particularly relevant to the concept of design, pattern or agency. Just a page number will be enough. Thanks in advance.Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Evidence of agency can be found in irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Now to refute that inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can account for it.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
iconofid:
The constant complaints about “materialism” on this site would be more convincing if we had the first scrap of evidence for the non-natural, don’t you think?
Gee, according to science nature had a begining. That would mean even in YOUR scenario something non-natural is required.
Is life made of chemicals?
There isn't anything that would demonstrate that life is reducible to chemical reactions.
So, I propose “chemical reactions” as the catalyst for OOL, and chemical evolution to explain the first thing that we might call life.
Good for you. However it is meaningless without any scientific data.
Cosmology tells as that the universe could not have always supported life, therefore eternal life is impossible, therefore there must have been a first life form or forms that did not come from other life.
Living organisms- life could be a separate entity and most likely is. IOW living organisms are the result of a combination of matter, energy, information and life.
If I.D. is to attempt to explain “FSCI”, it cannot evoke higher levels of “FSCI” to do that.
Not if it takes FCSI to get FCSI. THAT is the whole point. And again all YOU have to do is demonstrate that FCSI can arise without agency involvement. What part of that don't you understand?Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Alan, There is much more to the book than just that one page.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Joseph says: No I mean UNGUIDED processes. THAT is what is being debated, unguided vs guided processes. The reason I suggested that you meant intelligent guidance is because the word "guided" does not automatically imply sentience. As in: "She was guided by the light of the moon" or "the rolling hills guided the river on its winding course" or "the organisms' evolutionary path was guided by the constraints of their environment". And there isn’t any data which woulkd demonstrate unguided processes can do such a thing. Let's see. Do chemical reactions rearrange chemicals into new formations? Is life made of chemicals? Does chemical evolution happen? (remembering that the observable micro-evolution is all chemical, but after the point when we've defined chemical arrangements as life). So, I propose "chemical reactions" as the catalyst for OOL, and chemical evolution to explain the first thing that we might call life. "Yet we have direct evidence of intelligent agencies doing that type of thing." The intelligent agencies that you observe are dependent on the cellular complexity that you're trying to explain, and are themselves far more complex than the individual cells. If I.D. is to attempt to explain "FSCI", it cannot evoke higher levels of "FSCI" to do that. You don't explain something by claiming that it's a prerequisite for itself. OK but I am talking about how those chemicals and their formation came to be. Ya see inside of a living cell we have amino acids in very close proximity to one another. Yet they do NOT spontaneously form a chain. The same goes for nucleotides. IOW there isn’t anything with nature, operating freely that demonstrates that specified complexity required for living organisms can arise via unguided processes. Aren't you assuming that life isn't natural in order to prove it? And aren't you backing up Michael Shermer's point on a recent thread that I.D.ers make "God of the gaps" arguments? Science has demonstrated that only life begets life. Not so. Cosmology tells as that the universe could not have always supported life, therefore eternal life is impossible, therefore there must have been a first life form or forms that did not come from other life. Hasn't anyone in the I.D. movement figured that out yet? IOW it is obvious that you haven’t taken a look- either that or you just don’t understand what you were seeing. I understand when I'm seeing "intelligent designer of the gaps" arguments. These go: In the 19th, scientists had no idea how the sun could burn for hundreds of millions of years, let alone billions, so, the intelligent designer must be responsible. In the 20th century, the I.D.er gives up the task, but still does things like abiogenesis. What we do not know at any point in time does not equal "intelligent designer", Joseph. The scientific attitude is to try and find out. OOL research is going on, but unlike sticking invisible beings in gaps, it takes hard work! I repeat my suggestion further up the thread that a search for positive evidence of the existence of the non-natural would be a natural course for I.D. The constant complaints about "materialism" on this site would be more convincing if we had the first scrap of evidence for the non-natural, don't you think?iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Hello Upright Biped: I notice you used the phrase "evidence of agency" a couple of times. Would you have an example? Is agency what produces a design or a deliberately intended or produced pattern, i. e. an abstract structure which correlates in special ways to mind, or is mind correlative?Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Iconofld, So allow me to understand you more clearly. You say that you’ve read all this ID literature, but still, your initial assessment is that ID should look to study the “non-natural.” Does your suggestion sound coherent to the research you’ve read? What part of DBB brought you to this conclusion? What part of David Abel’s work suggests this? Why would you suggest that Abel abandon his research of the observable artifacts within nucleic sequencing in order to …do what? I use the word “coherent” in asking these questions, and I use it for a reason. (MerrWeb. “coherent” : marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts). So again I ask, given your claimed reading of the literature, what makes you suggest what you do? Also in your response, you imply that I tried to use Behe, Denton, Abel, etc as an argument from authority. I find this suggestion laughable. You’ve already made it clear that you think ID proponents are comparable to children looking up at the clouds; so exactly how much authority could I be appealing to? Are you now asking me to be incoherent as well? You also asks “are you being respectful of the ~ 99% of scientists who are not “I.D.ers” and whom you see as ideologically driven”. I can only respond to this by asking if it is acceptable (indeed proper) that I take them at their own words? If Lewontin says that science will only consider materialistic causes (to the stated and distinct exception of agency) despite “the patent absurdity” of the conclusions, and despite a “tolerance” for producing “unsubstantiated just-so-stories” as the result of a “prior commitment” to ignore agency - may I then deduced that science does indeed intend to ignore agency? And further, if it is then made perfectly clear that it is not the “methods and institution of science” that brings this condition about, but is rather a “forced” condition brought about by the idea(ological) belief that “materialism is an absolute” - may I then conclude that the condition is ideological in nature? So now to your question - Do I respect the conclusions of scientists who create patently absurd just-so-stories in order to ignore the evidence of agency (only) because they have a prior commitment to an ideological position on what that evidence can and cannot say? No, I don’t. I rather would ask what is their responsibility to the public that they are committed to serve? Does that responsibility contain any standards regarding honesty or integrity? If so, what exactly are those standards? In the previous paragraph I added the word “only” in parentheses. “…ONLY because they have a prior commitment…” Are you really suggesting that these scientist are afraid that someone might see a boogieman in a pathogen - the Dark Ages - as you seem to want to imply? Truly, you cannot be serious. So…. In the face of the substantial and compelling scientific evidence for volitional agency in the sequencing of nucleic acids (also including tremendous collateral evidence from other areas of biology, as well as paleontology and the fossil record) you dutifully inject boogiemen beliefs from the Dark Ages as relief from what is implied by the evidence at hand today. And then you turn around and suggest these things cannot be trusted because those in the discussion are “driven by something other than scientific method and curiosity?” Do you have any idea how disconnected (incoherent) your reasoning appears? Really. - - - - - - - Sorry iconofld, I cannot take you seriously. Can you even give any sort of conceptual narrative whereby chance can coordinate function within the nucleic sequence from disparate results scattered along the nucleic chain? Can you offer the material explanation for how the ribosome comes to “know” the convention within the genetic code, or even what the stop codon means? Can you suggest a plausible narrative for RV+NS to cause the integrated information necessary for functioning cecal vales to suddenly appear in the genome of the Adriatic lizards in less that 30 generations?Upright BiPed
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
PS: the quotes in #151 are from "Nature, Design and Science" by Delvin Lee RatzschAlan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Joe: From page 3: A design is a deliberately intended or produced pattern. And: A pattern is an abstract structure which correlates in special ways to mind, or is mind correlative. Is everyone happy with these definitions? Can you point me to any passage of particular relevance in the book, Joe?Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Joseph @149
Only if the hypothesis being tested makes measurable predictions.
Which leaves the theory of evolution out.
You have been corrected on your use of this not only erroneous but ridiculously easily refuted claim repeatedly, most recently in this thread (link not working for some reason): https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/outsider-meddling-skeptics-need-not-apply-or-just-have-faith/#comment-312261 Continuing to repeat this utterly basely claim merely shows your lack of knowledge of modern evolutionary theory and the practice of science. Normally, that would simply be good reason to ignore you as contributing no value to the discussion. Unfortunately, your behavior actively undermines the goals of those of us who would like ID to eventually be taken seriously as a scientific theory. Dr. Behe's work is, in my opinion, more likely than that of Dr. Dembski to take the current ID hypothesis and make it a predictive, falsifiable, scientific theory. We're not there yet. When we are, our credibility is going to be minimal because of ID "supporters" who make unfounded assertions like yours. It is all too easy for ID opponents to say "ID supporters don't understand evolutionary theory." or "ID supporters are just Liars for Jesus." If you really want to see ID succeed, stop giving them that ammunition. JJJayM
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
145 tribune7
04/16/2009 8:42 am
What is “design”?
Before I give you a definition do you agree that it is something that exists?
Why so coy? The word "design" exists as a noun and a verb. People design and build things. Designs are produced by entities such as people. But just having a word does not give something existence. How can I agree something exists before you tell me what that something is?Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Only if the hypothesis being tested makes measurable predictions.
Which leaves the theory of evolution out.
Unless “Intelligent Design” is a physical process that manifests itself in some way that is detectable, it is invisible to Science, thus impossible to confirm or falsify its existence.
The design is in the physical world and is open to empirical testing. Now to refute the design inference for any given thing all one has to do is demonstrate that it is reducible such that agency involvement is not warranted. As for "intelligence" well that is only to differentiate between apparent design on one side and optimal design on the other. It basically refrs to agency involvement. You can read all about it in "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch. Ya se Alan ID does have defined terms- unlike your position which just states "it evolved" without even knowing if it could. So ID can be tested against those terms. And as with ALL scientific theories if disconfirming data is provided it either has to adjust or be abandoned. So read the book Alan and actually become educated of that which you are debating.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Re: Cecal valves in Italian Wall lizards: (Sorry, long post. We really need a message-board-style format, as does just about every blog with more than a handful of comments on each post.) #126 magan:
Concerning the very rapid appearance of the cecal valves in certain isolated populations of lizards. This special adaptation is apparently already present in other lineages of lizards. Isn’t it most reasonable that these animals shared the same ancestry, in which the cecal valve design was developed once. Then the lizards went through repeated cycles of adaptation and readaptation in varied habitats in which the initially developed cecal valve design was expressed if needed, repressed if not needed, but retained for future use. Thus the rapid cecal valve development in the isolated population was just expression of a recessive characteristic retained in the genome because it was very useful in some environments. Not evidence either for or against ID.
I highlighted the most questionable text in bold in your post. Is it reasonable? Yes, there is some defensible logic behind the statement, therefore it is reasonable. Is it most reasonable? I don't see any evidence for this being the case. It is only present in about 1% of all other lizard populations. From the evidence we have, assuming it is just a repressed, previously evolved trait, it is repressed for a vast majority of the time. Why would a trait that is selectively neutral for 99% of lizards not be degraded by unchecked genetic mutation and variation? Secondly, if it is a repressed trait, "repressed if not needed", why did hatchlings exhibit the trait? I'm not an expert in gene regulation, so maybe regulated gene expression is hereditary? I didn't think so, but could be wrong. Here is a quote from: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource PNAS March 25, 2008 vol. 105 no. 12 4792-4795
Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed.
Let me rephrase this in my words, just for the sake of allowing others to critique my understanding of it. I just want to be sure I'm reading it correctly, since I'm not a biologist or geneticist: Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests that new genetic code was developed, we need to further study the potential role of regulated gene expression of previously existing genes to see if they can account for the differences. There is strong evidence against a neo-Darwinian development of the trait in these lizards once they stepped on the island. It was interesting going back and reading the post of this news on PZ Myer's blog, Pharyngula. In the initial post, PZ said (emphasis added):
The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards. That's important. This is more than a simple quantitative change, but is actually an observed qualitative change in a population, the appearance of a new morphological structure. Evolution created something new, and it did it quickly (about 30 generations), and the appearance was documented. It's still just a lizard, but we expected nothing else — and it's now a lizard with novel adaptations for herbivory.
He was too busy laughing at people who believe ZERO evolution happened to realize that it is incredibly unrealistic for this to be a novel creation from a naturalist viewpoint. After a couple hundred mud-slinging comments cursing and laughing at "creobots" and "IDiots", the few that were left were pointing out that it didn't make a whole lot of sense, and that the only realistic option for the naturalist camp would be to believe it is simply a repressed, previously evolved (when the safety and unobservability of deep time is available): Comment #334, joshTheGoods:
Before I comment, I'd like to point out that I'm a naturalist that believes whole heartedly in the near fact of evolution and common descent. ... ...if I were a betting man my money would be on the idea that this is not the evolution of a new morphological trait. Please correct me if I'm wrong; is the statement: "a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved" possibly a mistake?
As an aside: I also included his initial sentence, which I have found to be standard anywhere a naturalist questions something that the majority of naturalists have assumed to be true. It is fear of peers and leaders, which speaks volumes as to why so many don't question the dogma of those in power. Why did he feel the need to sware allegiance to Darwinism? It doesn't just happen on mud-slinging blogs like Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb, but in peer-reviewed articles and in renowned science publications. Here's a link to another Pharyngula post demonstrating this: New Scientist says Darwin was wrong The article basically says typical biological understanding is laughably simple and naiive from what really exists:
If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted, they are going to be proved wrong too. The more that genomics, bioinformatics and many other newer disciplines reveal about life, the more obvious it becomes that our present understanding is not up to the job. We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism.
But at the end of the article, the swear to allegiance is there, as expected, and without any evidence supporting it:
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.
Basically, even though we've been wrong all along, we will continue to be right ... err, something like that. Anyway, whatever happens, anyone believing there is a purpose is WRONG.uoflcard
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
JohnADavison[79]: (Sorry for not getting back to you sooner)Your comment about the sparrows clarifies pretty much what I had in mind. What I meant by "Lamarckian" was that the environment is responsible for such traits, and that these traits are subsequently inheritable, probably first having appeared through some kind of epigentic effect inter-generationally. And, I would expect that the traits would be reversible--all of which we see in your example of the English sparrows. I'm probably using the term "Lamarkian" too loosely. But, of course, it's obvious that gradualism can in no way explain what we see in the case of this Adriatic lizard. There's no way the information needed to 'construct' a cecal valve could have evolved in so short a period of time. But, of course, the death of 'gradualism' will have no effect at all on Darwinism, which explicitly (per Darwin INSISTS on gradualism), since, well, we're dealing with 'true believers'. Thanks for the response.PaV
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
To conserve cyberspace - http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=108#001620 my comment April 15, 2009, 8:40 AMJohnADavison
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply