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
What is “design”? Before I give you a definition do you agree that it is something that exists?tribune7
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
That’s all it is. Phenomena have characteristics. Among the characteristics that a phenomenon could have is design.
This raises another issue that I can never get a satisfactory answer to. What is "design"? And, for that matter, what is "intelligence"? Part of the problem (for me at least) for ID theory is the reluctance to define terms consistently or even at all.
ID says that design has innate traits — this shouldn’t be controversial — and states what those traits are.
OK. So I must have missed that. Those traits are...?
If the traits ID claims are found not to be innate to design then ID is falsified.
Those traits are...?Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Unless “Intelligent Design” is a physical process that manifests itself in some way that is detectable, That's all it is. Phenomena have characteristics. Among the characteristics that a phenomenon could have is design. ID says that design has innate traits -- this shouldn't be controversial -- and states what those traits are. If the traits ID claims are found not to be innate to design then ID is falsified.tribune7
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Well, ID is science which means it can be falsified...
Only if the hypothesis being tested makes measurable predictions.
... but what you suggest would not be the falsification. The falsification would be showing how the sequences directing the functional and specific production of proteins came about without design.
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.Alan Fox
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
But you seem to demand an impossible level of detail for the evolution of Elephant (modern African,) from LUCA, or will an estimate suffice? An estimate guided by a testable methodology would be fine, and if we should compare such an estimate with observed rates of genetic mutation we should be able to determine the reasonableness of the NDE model.tribune7
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Alan, The point of the OoL is that if living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via unguided processes then there wouldn't be any reason to infer the subsequent evolution was due solely to unguided processes. Also if it is shown that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via unguided processes, ID would fall.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But you seem to demand an impossible level of detail for the evolution of Elephant (modern African,) from LUCA, or will an estimate suffice?
There isn't any scientific data from genetics or biology that would demonstrate such a transformation is even possible. No one on this planet knows what makes an elephant and elephant. Therefor no one can say whether or not a non-elephant can "evolve" into an elephant.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
“Just what part of transcription, with its proof-reading, error-correction, editing, and translation into another type of molecule that will then do some work, strikes you as being cobbled together via unguided processes?”
You mean intelligently guided, presumably, not guided by environmental pressure and constraints.
No I mean UNGUIDED processes. THAT is what is being debated, unguided vs guided processes. And there isn't any data which woulkd demonstrate unguided processes can do such a thing. Yet we have direct evidence of intelligent agencies doing that type of thing.
As I said in the post you’re replying to, I see no reason why there shouldn’t be complex chemical formations in a complex universe.
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. Science has demonstrated that only life begets life.
If a chemical self-replicator replicates with variation for billions of generations, then advantageous increases in complexity would be favoured, and evolvability itself would be selected for in an ever changing environment.
Where did those replicators come from? And how did they incorporate the transcription and translation processes required by living organisms? Ya see YOU don't have anything in the way of science to answer those questions. Cells are far more than replicators. IOW it is obvious that you haven't taken a look- either that or you just don't understand what you were seeing.Joseph
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Upright Biped: "From your post you simply sound like you’ve accepted the party line and justified to yourself that no further discovery of the underlying issues is required. I say that this is fairly normal, but others might call you a cow." Wrongly read, then. Loads of discovery of the underlying issues is required, IMO. As to your list of I.D. supporters with scientific qualifications, and your claim that I'm being disrespectful, that's not entirely true. I think I've actually read at least one article/paper at some time by every name you mentioned, and in the case of one (Michael Behe) an entire book (Darwin's Black Box - about eight years ago). But are you mentioning names with good qualifications as an argument from authority? And are you being respectful of the ~ 99% of scientists who are not "I.D.ers" and whom you see as ideologically driven, and perhaps as "cows"? Perhaps they should study under you? I'll try to explain with an example from outside I.D. I assume that you're not a young earth creationist. If you look at the YEC's list of supporters with scientific qualifications, you can find PhDs in a variety of fields. There are geologists who firmly believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. Given the enormous number of scientists in the world, how much respect should I have for this handful, and would I be right in suggesting that they're driven by something other than scientific method and curiosity? "Secondly, the corrective measure to the historical context you raise is to stop seeing agency where agency is not empirically inferred." Certainly. And what I meant by agency being accepted was when we see it in ourselves and other animals. Where we seem to differ is that I would not infer it on the basis of complexity, information and function, all things difficult to quantify and define. I don't infer design by making analogies to things we ourselves design, and I don't think it constructive to stick designers in the gaps in our knowledge (or to call them "null hypotheses").iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Joseph: "Perhaps you should try taking a look." I have. "Just what part of transcription, with its proof-reading, error-correction, editing, and translation into another type of molecule that will then do some work, strikes you as being cobbled together via unguided processes?" You mean intelligently guided, presumably, not guided by environmental pressure and constraints. My answer is: all of it. As I said in the post you're replying to, I see no reason why there shouldn't be complex chemical formations in a complex universe. If a chemical self-replicator replicates with variation for billions of generations, then advantageous increases in complexity would be favoured, and evolvability itself would be selected for in an ever changing environment. The result would be complex cells. You might be surprised by the results, but I'm not.iconofid
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
ShawnBoy in #114. I forgot to thank you for your kind words.JohnADavison
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
So, will you be joining materialists everywhere calling for an end to the current default assumption that life began by chance and necessity?
No, because I don't know how life got started on Earth, and I think OOL is an untractable problem without extraterrestrial evidence, such as evidence of life on Mars, and should that exist or have existed, whether or not it shows similarity to life on Earth. (As I have said before!)
As I have asked before, what will you be calling your movement?
Thus no need for any campaigns.Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
That question is very much answerable, at least with regard to a reasonable estimate. Determine the parameters of your beach — length, width, depth of sand — count the grains in a sample and extrapolate.
Exactly! But you seem to demand an impossible level of detail for the evolution of Elephant (modern African,) from LUCA, or will an estimate suffice?Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
Secondly, the corrective measure to the historical context you raise is to stop seeing agency where agency is not empirically inferred. It’s been a couple hundred years and several million thinkers since that became clear. Mission accomplished. On the other hand, the irrational corrective measure is to hide ourselves from the evidence and simply say that we must not see agency even under the strongest possible inference to it, and (at the same time) the complete lack of inference to either chance or necessity. Now how smart are we?
Wow. You do have a way with words, UB!Lutepisc
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
iconofld, I haven’t tons of time, so allow me to be brief. :-) From your post you simply sound like you've accepted the party line and justified to yourself that no further discovery of the underlying issues is required. I say that this is fairly normal, but others might call you a cow.
I would have thought that “agency” is readily accepted, but perhaps we’re thinking of different uses of the word.
This comment is a bit of head-in-sand, or is simply misinformed (again fairly common). “We say that these events are accidental, due to chance. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution” -Monod “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.” -Lewontin These quotes are so old and weathered - and insisted upon with every fibre of science. It’s odd indeed to have someone actually suggest that agency is even considered at all.
But there’s a reason for being suspicious of suggestions of intelligent agency by unknown agents. This is because our species has a long record of seeing volition where it isn’t. Anything from the evil spirits that cause disease to the gods who control the weather, etc.
Firstly, ID is the study of the artifacts of agency, not the agent. Why? Because there is nothing in those artifacts that allows that study. IOW, its evidence based, and nothing else. Secondly, the corrective measure to the historical context you raise is to stop seeing agency where agency is not empirically inferred. It’s been a couple hundred years and several million thinkers since that became clear. Mission accomplished. On the other hand, the irrational corrective measure is to hide ourselves from the evidence and simply say that we must not see agency even under the strongest possible inference to it, and (at the same time) the complete lack of inference to either chance or necessity. Now how smart are we?
I.D. is very human in this respect, but if someone sees design in a complex little pathogen, it’s hardly surprising if the scientific establishment is suspicious, and thoughts of the dark ages of the evil spirits come to mind.
Someone? Do you mean like a plumber or a priest? What if the someone is Dean Kenyon who wrote The Book on chemical evolution (and stayed with it until he could no longer justify that nucleic information is the output of physio-dynamic forces such as those found in Newtonian Mechanics, Einstein’s Relativity, Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, or Quantum Mechanics)? Or Mike Behe, or Michael Denton or David Abel, or Mike Gene? And “suspicious”? The scientific establishment is not suspicious; they are systematically guarding their ideology from a rational evidenced-based scientific attack by highly-trained men and women who know of what they speak. There may be a subtle difference there that is not so subtle, if you don’t say it so fast. Dark Ages? Please be realistic.
I haven’t personally seen any evidence for design in biology
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
I read an interesting article a while ago about children preferring explanations like “it rains to make the flowers grow” over “it rains because of evaporation.” Somehow, I.D. reminds me of this.
Why not just find an ID proponent and spit in their face? Don’t wince at this; is comparing David Abel’s scientific argument childish any more respectful?
I see no reason why bacterial flagella shouldn’t be produced naturally by evolution, and I see no reason why there shouldn’t be complex chemical formations in a complex universe.
Really? Then perhaps Dean Kenyon should study under you. After all, judging by the standards you’ve set forth, he’s immediately comparable to a child wishing to see what he wishes to see. - - - - - - - - - - Please consider reading some of the actual scientific argument being made. You might find it less easily or carelessly dismissed.Upright BiPed
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
This is “The Holy Grail” of biochemistry, to predict nucleotide sequences that would produce proteins of specific function.
ID could lead the way- That is because the information that determines the function is NOT in the sequence itself. And progress will be slow because of a lack of resources.Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
iconofid:
I haven’t personally seen any evidence for design in biology, but others do, so it seems to be subjective rather than scientific.
Perhaps you should try taking a look. Just what part of transcription, with its proof-reading, error-correction, editing, and translation into another type of molecule that will then do some work, strikes you as being cobbled together via unguided processes? BTW our hitory is also full of times in which the design inference has withheld scrutiny. But you have identified the way to refute ID- just start supporting YOUR position! Imagine that- if you could just demonstrate that there isn't any need for a designer then the design inference would fade away just like those cases you were thinking of.Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But Toe is the only explanation that fits with the evidence.
But there isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates that the changes required are even possible via changes to the genomes.Joseph
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed The current paradigm does not ONLY say that “natural” effects have “natural” causes - it says that agency must be removed as a causal explanation despite any evidence of any kind to the contrary. This is an edict born of ideology - and is not connected to science, knowledge, falsifiablility, rationale, reason, or the evidence itself. I would have thought that "agency" is readily accepted, but perhaps we're thinking of different uses of the word. But there's a reason for being suspicious of suggestions of intelligent agency by unknown agents. This is because our species has a long record of seeing volition where it isn't. Anything from the evil spirits that cause disease to the gods who control the weather, etc. I.D. is very human in this respect, but if someone sees design in a complex little pathogen, it's hardly surprising if the scientific establishment is suspicious, and thoughts of the dark ages of the evil spirits come to mind. I haven't personally seen any evidence for design in biology, but others do, so it seems to be subjective rather than scientific. I read an interesting article a while ago about children preferring explanations like "it rains to make the flowers grow" over "it rains because of evaporation." Somehow, I.D. reminds me of this. I see no reason why bacterial flagella shouldn't be produced naturally by evolution, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be complex chemical formations in a complex universe.iconofid
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
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.magnan
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
iconofld "The current default assumption is that natural phenomena have natural causes" This is insufficient as a statement of the paradigm, and is a strawman stuffed with red herrings as well, if you don't mind me mixing metaphors. 1) The current paradigm does not ONLY say that "natural" effects have "natural" causes - it says that agency must be removed as a causal explanation despite any evidence of any kind to the contrary. This is an edict born of ideology - and is not connected to science, knowledge, falsifiablility, rationale, reason, or the evidence itself. 2) ID does not posit anything whasoever beyond the empirically observable evidence that may be shared between all people - regardless of what they may, or may not, think is the cause of those empirically observable effects. Iconofld "An I.D. research program aimed at demonstrating positive evidence for the existence of the non-natural would be a good step towards changing this default assumption, don’t you think?" No, it wold be the end of ID as a scientific effort. But, thanks for asking.Upright BiPed
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed says: So, will you be joining materialists everywhere calling for an end to the current default assumption that life began by chance and necessity? Why should life be necessary? The current default assumption is that natural phenomena have natural causes. Perhaps this is because of the complete lack of evidence for the "non-natural". An I.D. research program aimed at demonstrating positive evidence for the existence of the non-natural would be a good step towards changing this default assumption, don't you think?iconofid
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
It is unanswerable. Or rather, the answer is not tractable to human observation.
So, will you be joining materialists everywhere calling for an end to the current default assumption that life began by chance and necessity? As I have asked before, what will you be calling your movement?Upright BiPed
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
This is “The Holy Grail” of biochemistry, to predict nucleotide sequences that would produce proteins of specific function. Again, i am a bit of a pessimist in how long it will be before we start to make progress in this field. Well, ID is science which means it can be falsified but what you suggest would not be the falsification. The falsification would be showing how the sequences directing the functional and specific production of proteins came about without design.tribune7
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
For the same reason that I can’t tell you how many grains of sand are on my local beach. It is unanswerable. That question is very much answerable, at least with regard to a reasonable estimate. Determine the parameters of your beach -- length, width, depth of sand -- count the grains in a sample and extrapolate.tribune7
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
...but even that would still not account for the complexity of the DNA coding for the production of proteins for the eye and its interactions with the nervous system.
This is "The Holy Grail" of biochemistry, to predict nucleotide sequences that would produce proteins of specific function. Again, i am a bit of a pessimist in how long it will be before we start to make progress in this field.Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
It’s a question with an objective answer that can be approached methodologically, Why would someone not have an answer, even a tentative one?
For the same reason that I can't tell you how many grains of sand are on my local beach. It is unanswerable. Or rather, the answer is not tractable to human observation.
Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
This indicates that you do not understand the debate.
Absolutely, Jerry§ Please enlighten me. Does ID have a hypothesis or theory that explains the current diversity of life?
Natural selection is a minor factor in the evolution debate and possibly the most over blown concept in the history of science.
I disagree. I think it is the central issue.
The debate is over how variation was created.
If you mean there is no serious alternative explanation to natural selection, we can agree here.
Best expressed by Hugo DeVries assessment in 1904, that the survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest”
Well, if you mean, how did life get started on Earth, the toE does not attempt to tackle that issue. I am a pessimist with Hubert Yockey and Robert Shapiro on the OOL issue. Unless we fiond evidence from extraplanetary sources, OOL will remain a speculative subject.Alan Fox
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
According to NDE how many mutations to the genome would be required to turn LUCA into an elephant? Is reasonable to think this could occur using any observed rate of mutation? . . .I don’t know, and I suspect nobody else does. It's a question with an objective answer that can be approached methodologically, Why would someone not have an answer, even a tentative one? But Toe is the only explanation that fits with the evidence. Expect for the part about the indications of saltations, and inability to address whether the mutation rate fits the theory. Do you mean evolution occured . . I mean ID does not address evolution, pro or con -- unless one is defining evolution in such a way that it arbitrarily precludes consideration of design, which would make it dogma and not science. What’s a rabbit test? An old test for pregnancy. It would only give a yes or no. Other relevant questions -- who's the father, boy or girl -- would not be addressed. Despite the limitation, the rabbit test was obviously not useless. ID simply says the data indicates eyes to be designed . . . Where, When? How? What data? The eye is a device that performs a specific function and has enough complexity to preclude it from coming about by chance. Now you can attempt to address the probability problem -- and the concerns Darwin himself had with the eye -- via a stepwise evolution from photosensitive skin, but even that would still not account for the complexity of the DNA coding for the production of proteins for the eye and its interactions with the nervous system.tribune7
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare." Terry TrainorJohnADavison
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply