Maybe Carl Zimmer is free to read Science and Human Origins now …

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 23, 2012

Human evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

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

We may have answered his question. A little background:

Recently, we noted that prominent science writer Carl Zimmer was in a tangle with Discovery Institute’s David Klinghoffer arising from a discussion on a Facebook page: His issue here was this paragraph:

But the idea of such an event having occurred at all is itself far from sure. The telomeric DNA parked in the middle of chromosome 2 is not a unique phenomenon. Other mammals have it too, across their own genomes. Even if it were unique, there’s much less of it than you would expect from the amalgamation of two telomeres. Finally, it appears in a “degenerate,” “highly diverged” form that should not be the case if the joining happened in the recent past, circa 6 million years ago, as the Darwinian interpretation holds.
I was baffled, so I asked on Facebook for the evidence that the form of the chromosome wasn’t what you’d expect if it fused six million years ago.

What followed was a ridiculous runaround, some of which I’ll reproduce here: More.

Well, a reader writes to say, here is where the idea might have originated:

This 1991 Pub Med paper:

Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

Chen FC, Li WH., Department of Life Science, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

If the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ~6 Mya, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate? The arrays are 14% diverged from canonical telomere repeats (not shown), whereas noncoding sequence has diverged There are three possible explanations: (1) Given the many instances of degenerate telomeric arrays within the subtelomeric regions of human chromosomes (Riethman et al. 2001), the chromosomes joined at interstitial arrays near, but not actually at, their ends. In this case, material from the very ends of the fusion partners would have been discarded. (2) The arrays were originally true terminal arrays that degenerated rapidly after the fusion. This high rate of change is plausible, given the remarkably high allelic variation observed at the fusion site. The arrays in the BAC and the sequence obtained by Ijdo et al. (1991) differ by 12%, which is high even if some differences are ascribed to experimental error. (3) Some array degeneracy could be a consequence of sequencing errors. We have not been able to PCR successfully across the fusion site, which would be required to assess the contribution of sequencing errors to this measure of fusion-site sequence polymorphism. However, explanation 2 is supported by the high variability among allelic copies of other interstitial telomeric repeats and associated regions sequenced by Mondello et al. (2000) (AF236886 and AF236885). Considering the high mutability of interstitial telomere repeat arrays, the fusion partners could have joined either within terminal or subterminal arrays to form chromosome 2.

Was this where the idea originated?

Now Carl Zimmer is free to read the book anyway.

See also: Here, Cornelius Hunter addresses the Zimmer-Klinghoffer conflict.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Paul- The problem is that your position cannot acount for any genes, that includes all alleged ancestral genes.Joe_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

F/N: Just as a burden of warrant point, it needs to be shown, on positive observational evidence, that the CV + DRS --> DWM --> Macro-Evo --> Tree of life dynamic actually works. Gross extrapolation of minor variations does not cut it. Similarly, PM has had to acknowledge how hard it is to move across AA sequence space to functional forms and from one form to another. He seems to be suggesting constrained paths. But, the DNA sequences that string are not chemically constrained by the chaining reactions. These SYMBOLICALLY are converted into AA chains in the Ribosome, which is a flexibly programmed machine. He is actually inadvertently pointing to evidence of islands of function. Which is what Gauger, as clipped is underscoring.kairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: It continues, the predictable refusal to address the "every tub must stand on its own bottom" issue, and the slide into a distractive, polarised debate. The problem with that one is, leave it alone, and the smears stand. Address them and those who imagine that both sides are equally blameworthy think "a pox on both houses." Having already highlighted the issues on that side, I note that and pass on. On the science side, this thread is originally on the claimed chromosome 2 fusion event. On the merits, it is by no means clear, as highlighted in 10 above, that this is relevant to claims of origin of humans by chance variation and differential, incremental reproductive success of different varieties starting with a chimp-like primate. Onward, this leads to the challenge to show that it is feasible to convert such an ape population in 6 - 10 MY by the indicated mechanisms. I highlighted the particular issue of origin of linguistic ability and related logical and epistemic functions, on the relevant pattern. This points to the wider challenge of the origin of body plans, and is directly relevant to the origin of the codes, algorithms and associated effecting machines for the origin of cell based life. PM has of course brought up his attempt to overthrow and dismiss the recent book by Gauger et al, which seems to be by a dismissive focus on one particular point; in the teeth of protests that there is a case as a whole to answer and the point in question is not the slam dunk suggested. Namely, the issue of the modification of enzyme function, and so I have taken a moment to put up the excerpt in 33 above. I think there is reason to see that there is another side to the story, and Gauger clearly has a point. I have also pointed to the sort of pop genetics problems that lie unanswered, e.g. in above and in the onward linked here. All in all, it is quite clear to the astute onlooker that the evolutionary materialist paradigm has not properly made its case and that it more prevails by the intellectual climate than the merits. That comes out in case after case. Philip Johnson's rebuke to Lewontin is right: the issue is the worldview level a priori, often pushed in by the backdoor of a methodological rule. What I find especially revealing int he linked discussions by PM is that he simply does not seem to realise that every tub must stand on its own bottom. The darwinist frame is not a default, any more than any other scientific theory. So, it needs to provide observationally anchored warrant. Warrant capable of answering to the development of major body plans and specialist adaptations such as whales, bats, birds, and upright walking, language using bipeds. I know per massive observation that design can account causally for the origin of digital code using, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Living forms are of that class. Discounting fairly minor adaptations, I have no good observationally anchored reason to see that blind chance variation and incremental differential reproductive success can do the same absent intelligent design. Until that case is seriously made, the sort of claims we commonly see that the grand Darwinist narrative (or the latest modifications thereto) are as morally certain facts as the orbiting of the planets, will remain an unwarrranted assertion. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

KF can continue to take his grubby little pot-shots at me and refer to my extensive review as a "noview" all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that he has done nothing but dodge the argument. Also, considering I wrote this expressly in response to Gauger's piece "On Enzymes and Teleology" and Axe's accompanying piece, I fail to see how I am avoiding any of the issues here, or how the ball remains is in my court. I have tried to explain why their work is, while interesting, not the problem for evolution that they have claimed. Incidentally, another simple point on the two genes in Gauger and Axe (2011) that I didn't address in the above but illustrates one way that their work stacks the odds against evolution (and therefore fails to fairly test an evolutionary question): both are contemporary genes in E. coli, so they originate at one time from an ancestral gene duplication. If it takes 7 substitutions to get from one contemporary gene to the other, it might only take 3 or 4 from the ancestral gene - but they chose not to do ancestral gene reconstruction. Even YEC Todd Wood thought this was a bizarre choice. But this is the first in a series of arbitrary limitations set by Gauger and Axe that mean we cannot draw conclusions about evolution. We can conclude the number of nucleotide changes it takes to get from one chosen enzyme to another chosen enzyme when those two enzymes are separated by divergences at two-thirds of their amino acid residues and at least 9 insertion deletion events, but that is all. The idea that evolution should be able to bridge this enormous gap by a series of nucleotide substitutions (when we know that it is common for functional divergence in duplicate genes to arise by insertions, deletions and the formations or loss of introns and exons instead) is entirely arbitrary. Lastly, preordaining a change from X to Y does not test evolutionary theory because this is teleology. It is a test, instead, of intelligent design. I shall only note here that Gauger and Axe failed to turn X into Y.paulmc_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

@kairosfocus: "You may want to start your reading here..." Your answer wasn't intended for me, but thanks anyway. The link is what I was looking for. :-)
All around us we see marvelous examples of successful, even optimal design
Your quote reminds me of a magazine I read regulary, Awake. There's a science section there called "WAS IT DESIGNED?" It describes the complex features of various organisms and in the end it always finishes with something like "What do you think? Did the black fire beetle’s ability to detect forest fires come about by evolution? Or was it designed?" You can download it freely on jw.orgJWTruthInLove_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

F/N: The above (and more) has been at ENV since Jul 19.kairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

IP: You may want to start your reading here: ______ Gauger: >> Those who follow the evolution intelligent/design are probably familiar with one accusation that we often face -- that we do not do peer-reviewed research. In fact, we have published a number of peer-reviewed articles and one of them in particular, called "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway," contributed to the argument we made in the new book published by Discovery Institute Press, Science and Human Origins. That paper was critiqued last November by Paul McBride. He has now extended that critique in his review of our book, available here. McBride's main complaint is that we picked an unnatural evolutionary transition to test. We chose to examine how hard it would be to get a modern-day enzyme to switch to the chemistry of a closely related modern-day enzyme, with very similar structures and catalytic mechanisms. The reason for our choice was not ignorance. We knew that the enzymes we tested were modern, and that one was not the ancestor of the other. (They are, however, among the most structurally similar members of their family, and share many aspects of their reaction mechanism, but their chemistry itself is different.) We also knew that in order for a Darwinian process to generate the mechanistically and chemically diverse families of enzymes that are present in modern organisms, something like the functional conversion of one of these enzyme to the other must be possible. We reasoned that if these two enzymes could not be reconfigured through a gradual process of mutation and selection, then the Darwinian explanation of gene duplication and gradual divergence to new functions was called into question. Our results indicated that a minimum of seven mutations would be required to convert or reconfigure one enzyme toward the other's function. No one disputes that part of our research. What Paul McBride and others claim is that because we didn't start from an "ancestral" enzyme, our results mean nothing. They say something like, "Of course transitions to new chemistries between modern enzymes are difficult. What you should have done is to reconstruct the ancestral form and use it as a starting point." Have you noticed the assumption underlying this critique? The assumption is that genuine conversions can be achieved only if you start from just the right ancestral protein. Why is that? Because conversions are hard . . . . The problem then becomes, where did the diverse families of enzymes come from, if transitions are so hard, evolution is so constrained, and selection is so weak? Were the ur-proteins from which present families sprang so different from modern ones, so elastic that they could be easily molded to perform multiple functions? If so, how did they accomplish the specific necessary tasks for metabolism, transcription, and replication? [--> Notice the link back to OOL] More than that, how did the proteins necessary for replication, transcription, translation, and metabolism arrive at all, if evolution is so constrained? Those processes are much more complicated that a cellulase enzyme. We have ribosomes, spliceosomes, photosynthesis, and respiration. We have hummingbirds and carnivorous plants and even cows who make use of cellulose-degrading symbionts. The things that have not arrived or arrived very rarely, like cellulases, seem trivial by comparison to the things we see around us. Our results argue that only guided evolution, or intelligent design, can produce genuine innovations from a starting point of zero target activity . . . . Life is inherently teleological, and the needs of an organism cannot be met by whatever happens to show up. I would say, rather, that his faith in the unending creativity of evolution, in spite of the limitations of natural selection, the rarity of paths, and the functional needs of organisms, is itself a form of religion. This is an interesting turn in evolutionary thinking. People have been saying for years, "Of course evolution isn't random, it's directed by natural selection. It's not chance, it's chance and necessity." But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it's the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit. All around us we see marvelous examples of successful, even optimal design. If evolution is constrained to just a few paths, and you have to start with the right ancestral form to get anywhere, and fixation of useful new traits happens by accident, how did anything ever happen at all? Were the paths of adaptation "preordained"? Paul's choice of words, not mine. If there are only a few ways to solve any problem set by the needs of the organism because transitions are hard, then either the deck was stacked in our favor, or the process was guided, or we are incredibly lucky. >> ______ Okay, client ready now. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

This thread degenerated into a joke. Could someone please pick something out in paulmcs review and discuss it in detail. I'd like to, but I have no expertise in biology. Has paulmcs criticism maybe been answered in another blog? TobiJWTruthInLove_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

IP, I have to go now. In recent days, PM's noview has been seriously addressed, especially at ENV, with several related threads at UD. This is just one of them. Remember, "every tub must stand on its own bottom," and if the evo mat narrative of OOL and OO body plans including our own cannot do that, it hardly matters if there are even critical flaws in Gauger's work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand by default. I will, DV, be back later, I have a mission- critical issue to help a client address and have already taken more time than I should from it. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Please, do not let yet more attempted evasions, turnabouts and distractions from failure to address the issue on the merits make you take your eyes off the ball. Remember, a grand narrative of origins, including human origins, is on the table. It is advanced and trumpeted in the halls of academia, in textbooks of science, in museums, in the major media, all over the Internet and even in halls of power -- in the name of science -- under the pretense that evolutionary materialist scientism is "the only begetter of truth." It is commonly said to be as certain as established fact as that the planets orbit the sun. Those who advocate evolutionary materialism therefore have the responsibility of warrant from the roots of the tree of life on up to our own origins. If they cannot at least summarise and point to specific relevant, cogent and decisive observational evidence and empirically grounded analysis on the spontaneous origin of complex functional coded info and execution machines at the start of cell based life, that is telling. Similarly, if -- bearing in mind the pop genetics issues at 11 above I cited in this thread since early on July 24th -- they cannot address the matters on sound analysis backed up by empirical observations how the linguistic-symbolic-epistemic capacity of humans (including the PHYSICAL specialisations required for speech and language) originated from a chimp-like population in 6 - 10 MY, then we have prima facie evidence of spinning and institutionalising materialist just-so stories enforced through the Lewontin a prioris. The "you are ducking pop genetics" attempted turnabout is highly illuminating, given 11 above (as already linked) since early on Jul 24, and the discussion in the IOSE here on that addresses whales as a test case through a Ric Sternberg video (and Berlinski's similar discussion of 50,000 intermediates from a cow-like creature to a whale-like one). Where 11 above gives the relevance to human populations, i.e. the ball is and has been for some time in PM's court. So, WD's twistabout attempt in defense of Alinsky-ite mockery, crashes in flames. And PM needs to listen to those 100 million ghosts from the past 100 years a bit more before brushing aside the warnings on the consequences of nihilism empowered by dominant evolutionary materialist ideology, from Plato in The Laws Bk X on. (If you start here on, you will see that I have taken time to address the relevant range of issues, so I know for a fact that it can be done, even by summary and links to COGENT discussions. Notice, I am not tossing in the whole OOL issue, I am drawing a significant parallel regarding the role of language, logic and related phenomena at OOL, and in the origin of the human body plan. Which BTW corrects the notion that our body plan is but insignificantly diverse from that of a chimp. Language is a critical feature of the kind of intelligence we have to deal with, so it properly belongs on the table, in its centre. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

KF, I appreciate your posts here at UD. Always have. I'm in the ID camp. I'm also a novice that lurks about reading and learning as much as my feeble brain can. Please take that into account when I say that don't get the vibe that paulmc is being evasive or disingenuous. While he may not be able to account for the difficulties you've brought up it'd be helpful (to me at least) if you could point out the problem(s) with what he suggested as an answer to your initial question (http://apomorph.blogspot.com/2012/07/axe-and-gauger-respond-in-tandem.html) respectfully, lpadronlpadron_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Population genetics? You mean the field that doesn't have anything to support its claims wrt mutation fixation rates? What, exactly, is there to discuss wrt population genetics and human/ chimp common ancestry? Is there anything in population genetics that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible? NO. So what's the point? And no, Paul, we do not have the same body plan as other primates. We are upright bipeds, they are not. If you can't even get that right there's no use discussing anything with you.Joe_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Noho mai ra, that should read. Didn't like my macron 'a'.paulmc_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

After all the hyperbole about lamb chops and the stakes for society, and Plato, and indoctrination, and holy lab coats you end up discussing origins science of all things, instead of any of the other topics you've alluded to. That makes the list so far: OOL, population genetics, chromosomal fusions, aspects of human evolution, and patterns of deeper, body-plan evolution. I get it - you don't want to actually discuss population genetics. That's totally fine. Can't say I didn't try. Noho mai r?, as we say in this part of the world.paulmc_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

KF, As an onlooker, stop being so rude and just pick which of the topics you've flung at Paul you'd like him to explain.wd400_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: OOPS. PARDON A CORRECTIVE DOUBLE POST: ========== You can easily observe the distractive atmosphere poisoning continuing, from both PM and BT. I need to comment on it briefly before following up on substance, as this is the red flag that tells us what is at stake for our civilisation in these debates. And, we had better be willing to lift our gaze from the next clump of grass in front of our noses to see what is coming at us from a distance and take warning. Or, sooner or later, somebody is going to have us on the table as lamb chops for lunch. This is in perfect accord with the principles of Saul Alinsky and his community "organiser"/"occupier" disciples. We need not reinforce such rude behaviour by further responding to those who indulge it; it now having been exposed for all to see. And, we can rest assured that they know better, but choose not to do better because they think that they can gain an advantage by being out of order. Or, as we put it in my part of the world, no broughtupcy. As to recognising, with remorse, that they have gone too far and walking it back, apologising and making amends for rudeness, not a chance. Welcome to the world of Plato's Alcibiades-like nihilist factions -- yes, Plato warned us 2350 years ago -- driven by the inherent amorality due to the unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap of evolutionary materialism, the resulting radical relativism of values and the linked inference that "the highest right is might." We should note that this is how such too often behave when they have just a little power to "get away with it" for the moment. Think about what the most ruthless members of such factions would do if they controlled real levers of power. I trust you can hear the moans of 100 million ghosts from the sad history of the past century on that subject. What is now important is to address the key issues on the merits, for the concerned onlooker. Now, we can observe something vital: there is no response on the actual merits, especially the issue of the origin of linguistic-logical ability per the Darwinian mechanisms backed up by adequate evidence, which is pivotal to human origins. This, for the obvious reason that there is no substantial case backed up by evidence to present. But actually, the matter is much deeper than human origins. Going back to the root of the darwinist tree of cell-based life, we can observe and analyse that the living cell is based on having an encapsulated, metabolising, self-assembling, self-replicating automaton. One that uses a von Neumann self-replicator driven by digitally coded instructions and data, i.e. D/RNA. But, coded data and instructions in an organised step by step goal-directed task-completing pattern, are a manifestation of:
(i) evident or even manifest purpose, (ii) procedural logic, (iii) use of meaningful symbols with arbitrary assignment of reference between values and signified sense, thus: (iv) underlying: language and logic.
Right from the origin of cell based life, folks. The only credible, empirically warranted source for such a complex, functionally specific system is purposeful, knowledgeable, skilled and acting intelligence. In short, if we were to go with the empirical evidence in hand on the source of FSCO/I involving algorithms and digital codes, we would naturally infer design. And if we think about the increments in FSCO/I required to get tot he dozens of main body plans and tot he specialised adaptations for say a bird, or a whale or the language-using, logic-capable human being, we will see that once design is in the door and sitting at the table like that, it easily makes best sense of the actual evidence. But, this is strictly verbotten, per the modern impositions of methodological naturalism, which is evidently Lewontin's a priori materialism and scientism by the back door. ID thinker, Philip Johnson, has commented on the problem, responding to Lewontin (and with direct relevance to the others who are speaking, thinking or acting in a similar vein -- the just linked gives four other cases including the US NAS and NSTA):
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In short, the root reason why adherents or fellow travellers of the evolutionary materialist, scientistim-laced school of thought so often think that they have adequate evidence in hand for their claims about origin of life, origin of major body plans and of specialised forms including humans, is that there is a controlling a priori at work that locks up the process of thinking in a circle that leaves only something rather like darwinism on the table. Such systems of control only can thrive when they have us all locked up and genuflecting to the symbols of power. That is why it is time for Havel's power of the powerless to emerge. We refuse to bow to the Magisterium duly dressed in the holy lab coat and insist on thinking for ourselves and having the right to our own views, provided we have reasonable empirical warrant therefor. We recognise that if each of us takes time to work through these issues for a month with one other person, and the chain keeps going, in three years the whole world's population could go through the process. So, we are not dependent on the Magisterium or its official indoctrination centres and media amplifiers, thanks to the power of Internet amplified Samizdat. Origins science is far too important and far too consequential to society to be left to the materialist magisterium in the holy lab coat, and so we now embark on the path of thinking for ourselves and acting in light of that thinking. And, we refuse to be intimidated by boorish misconduct or abusive nihilistic misbehaviour. Indeed, we need to make it very clear to such that hey will not getaway with such behaviour, and that we see through the tactics to see the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that lie behind the brazen front. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: You can easily observe the distractive atmosphere poisoning continuing, from both PM and BT. I need to comment on it briefly before following up on substance, as this is the red flag that tells us what is at stake for our civilisation in these debates. And, we had better be willing to lift our gaze from the next clump of grass in front of our noses to see what is coming at us from a distance and take warning. Or, sooner or later, somebody is going to have us on the table as lamb chops for lunch. This is in perfect accord with the principles of Saul Alinsky and his community "organiser"/"occupier" disciples. We need not reinforce such rude behaviour by further responding to those who indulge it; it now having been exposed for all to see. And, we can rest assured that they know better, but choose not to do better because they think that they can gain an advantage by being out of order. Or, as we put it in my part of the world, no broughtupcy. As to recognising, with remorse, that they have gone too far and walking it back, apologising and making amends for rudeness, not a chance. Welcome to the world of Plato's Alcibiades-like nihilist factions -- yes, Plato warned us 2350 years ago -- driven by the inherent amorality due to the unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap of evolutionary materialism, the resulting radical relativism of values and the linked inference that "the highest right is might." We should note that this is how such too often behave when they have just a little power to "get away with it" for the moment. Think about what the most ruthless members of such factions would do if they controlled real levers of power. I trust you can hear the moans of 100 million ghosts from the sad history of the past century on that subject. What is now important is to address the key issues on the merits, for the concerned onlooker. Now, we can observe something vital: there is no response on the actual merits, especially the issue of the origin of linguistic-logical ability per the Darwinian mechanisms backed up by adequate evidence, which is pivotal to human origins. This, for the obvious reason that there is no substantial case backed up by evidence to present. But actually, the matter is much deeper than human origins. Going back to the root of the darwinist tree of cell-based life, we can observe and analyse that the living cell is based on having an encapsulated, metabolising, self-assembling, self-replicating automaton. One that uses a von Neumann self-replicator driven by digitally coded instructions and data, i.e. D/RNA. But, coded data and instructions in an organised step by step goal-directed task-completing pattern, are a manifestation of:
(i) evident or even manifest purpose, (ii) procedural logic, (iii) use of meaningful symbols with arbitrary assignment of reference between values and signified sense, thus: (iv) underlying: language and logic.
Right from the origin of cell based life, folks. The only credible, empirically warranted source for such a complex, functionally specific system is purposeful, knowledgeable, skilled and acting intelligence. In short, if we were to go with the empirical evidence in hand on the source of FSCO/I involving algorithms and digital codes, we would naturally infer design. And if we think about the increments in FSCO/I required to get tot he dozens of main body plans and tot he specialised adaptations for say a bird, or a whale or the language-using, logic-capable human being, we will see that once design is in the door and sitting at the table like that, it easily makes best sense of the actual evidence. But, this is strictly verbotten, per the modern impositions of methodological naturalism, which is evidently Lewontin's a priori materialism and scientism by the back door. ID thinker, Philip Johnson, has commented on the problem, responding to Lewontin (and with direct relevance to the others who are speaking, thinking or acting in a similar vein -- the just linked gives four other cases including the US NAS and NSTA):
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In short, the root reason why adherents or fellow travellers of the evolutionary materialist, scientistim-laced school of thought so often think that they have adequate evidence in hand for their claims about origin of life, origin of major body plans and of specialised forms including humans, is that there is a controlling a priori at work that locks up the process of thinking in a circle that leaves only something rather like darwinism on the table. Such systems of control only can thrive when they have us all locked up and genuflecting to the symbols of power. That is why it is time for Havel's power of the powerless to emerge. We refuse to bow to the Magisterium duly dressed in the holy lab coat and insist on thinking for ourselves and having the right to our own views, provided we have reasonable empirical warrant therefor. We recognise that if each of us takes time to work through these issues for a month with one other person, and the chain keeps going, in three years the whole world's population could go through the process. So, we are not dependent on the Magisterium or its official indoctrination centres and media amplifiers, thanks to the power of Internet amplified Samizdat. Origins science is far too important and far too consequential to society to be left to the materialist magisterium in the holy lab coat, and so we now embark on the path of thinking for ourselves and acting in light of that thinking. And, we refuse to be intimidated by boorish misconduct or abusive nihilistic misbehaviour. Indeed, we need to make it very clear to such that hey will not getaway with such behaviour, and that we see through the tactics to see the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that lie behind the brazen front. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Perhaps it has not been taught to him that making invidious and uncalled for associations is quite rude, but I doubt it.
Bahahahahhahahahahahaa!!!! ....breathes in.... Bahahahahahahahaaahaha!!! You owe the inhabitants of the entire galaxy a new irony-meter, Kairosfocus. Paul, Mr. Focus accuses everyone who disagrees with him of the basest impropriety. He'll be demanding an apology soon....he can't help it.Bartax_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Onlookers? A little passive-agressive, no? I'm mad with Paul, so I'm not talking to him. I haven't been rude, I've asked you to choose a topic. You on the other hand have falsely accused me of not even reading the book and falsely accused me of changing the topic. You can't bring up four broad areas of science and expect me to discuss all of them. As to the changes in the human lineage over 6-10My, I have already tried to give you a starting point, and you keep ignoring it. If you would like to steer the conversation back to the science, please read the blog post I've already written and discuss that. Otherwise, good day.paulmc_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Onlookers, Notice, PM is still not providing empirically backed up warrant for the origin by chance variation and differential reproductive success fixing incremental changes that transform a chimp like animal into a language capable human being in 6 - 10 MY. And, the issue of origin of verbal language and linked reasoning, logic etc. is a specific and critical difference with apes that requires physical equipment and associated cognitive features etc. It also happens to be self referential so if there is no credible foundation for a reasoning, knowing human being on the said basis [that avoids self referential incoherence or its close kissing cousins], there is self stultification at work. In addition, he refuses to own up to the significance of using references like ADHD etc. Perhaps it has not been taught to him that making invidious and uncalled for associations is quite rude, but I doubt it. Where of course the Saul Alinsky tactics are heavy on personalities, polarisation and ridicule. Shameless. The rhetorical games are still over. KFkairosfocus_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Game over? KF, it's amusing and all that you think you get to claim that I have made "evasive, dismissive and no-broughtupcy denigratory remarks", but I actually tried to link you to a starting point for a discussion about the population genetics and you have turned it down summarily, while taking something of a dig at my upbringing. The air is heavy with irony for it is you and no I who have responded with evasive and dismissive remarks - "switcharoo" - you even claimed that I did a noview on the book even though I have written a six-part, extensive, blow by blow critique. Now you are bring up "body-plan"? We have the same body plan as the other primates, so you are apparently referring to deeper evolution. So what is it? Population genetics, chromosomal fusions, a specific aspect of human evolution, or patterns of deeper, body-plan evolution? I can't discuss all of them in a post, KF, that sounds like a couple of textbooks.paulmc_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

PM: I have pointed to what you full well know would be required to substantiate on analysis and evidence, that you have a viable neo-darwinian mechanism to enable body-plan macro evolution. Your evasive, dismissive and no-broughtupcy denigratory remarks are a backhanded admission that you know you have not got a case on the merits. Game over KFkairosfocus_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Yeah, Durrett and Schmidt's special pleading made me all shivery. And you didn't say anything about how enzymes evolved. You don't have any idea how to test the claim that a duplication followed by mutations can produce an enzyme with a different function. Heck you can't test the claim that a duplication followed by mutation is a random event. As for the limits of evolution, well just look at Lenski's work. Nothing there that would lead anyone to accept universal common descent.Joe_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Also looks like a subject switcheroo.
Perhaps you didn't read it then. I discuss much more than enzyme evolution, and specifically discuss Durrett and Schmidt - and their disappointment at having their work misused re 216 My. In any case, all of it is relevant because it is about understanding the limits of evolution and how to test them, and both Gauger and Axe rely on this work to draw their conclusions about humans.
I know you would like to make this about your noview or cherry-picked points critique
No-view/cherry-picking? I wrote a 6-part critique of the book addressing all of the major points. The rest of your post appears to suffer from ADHD. Address this! - address that! - no, wait, address this! Those are a lot of demands. On the pop genetics front, again, I would point you to the link I have already given above. Others have given explanations about the chromosomal fusion in various forums and I would only be repeating them. And your request for a step-by-step "account of the origin of human speech and related linguistic capability" is quite simply bizarre. Do you think if I asked the same of intelligent design it would be reasonable?paulmc_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

So "it looks like a fusion even to me" is science if it supports evolutionism, but "it looks like design to me" isn't science because it doesn't support evolutionism. Guess what? The fusion doesn't support evolutionism as it could very well have been a designed event. Designed for reproductive isolation, which is good for evos...Joe_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Also looks like a subject switcheroo. I am not asking about enzyme processes, save insofar as such show what sort of genetic variation per mutation is reasonable as an incremental step. I know you would like to make this about your noview or cherry-picked points critique of Gauger et al, but the material issue is a bit deeper than that. Please respond to the specific question of the numbers of repeats, the reasonable way to get to a 46 chromo human line with no other lines AND to the wider one of the cluster of genetic changes (including regulatory ones) to transform a chimp-like primate into a human through chance variation and differential reproductive success leading to incremental advantageous changes all the way. Then justify such on realistic pop genetics, in a 6 - 10 MY window. In other words, why should I take the suggested body plan origin mechanism seriously? Back all of this up with adequate empirical observations that warrant such a claim. Maybe, let's focus: can you provide an empirically warranted, step by step account of the origin of human speech and related linguistic capability on evidence? In particular, address how the account leads to a credibly knowing and reasoning mind capable of expressing that knowledge and reason in language and other related symbols. If this is connected to the alleged fusion event, kindly show how. Surely, this is a key part of human origin. Let's see the dynamics, the play-out that credibly led to us in reasonably available time [incl. pop genetics], and warranting empirical evidence that does not go in a priori materialist circles or depend unduly on extrapolations accepted through the eye of Darwinist faith. KFkairosfocus_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Nice job Paul- you are basically admitting that your position is untestable.Joe_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Let’s hear a cogent answer that also resolves the pop genetics issue, from Zimmer et al.
Here's one I prepared earlier.paulmc_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Also relevant from Gauger (HT BA 77):
Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
Let's hear a cogent answer that also resolves the pop genetics issue, from Zimmer et al. KFkairosfocus_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

F/N: Notice who has spoken to the merits at book length, and who is being dismissive and evasive (after giving a "noview," which is inherently uncivil and dishonest). I also see that Klinghoffer has given a substantial response by way of citation from the technical experts from the "noviewed" book:
...[T]he evidence for chromosomal fusion isn't nearly as clear-cut as evolutionists like [Kenneth] Miller claim. Telomeric DNA at the ends of our chromosomes normally consists of thousands of repeats of the 6-base-pair sequence TTAGGG. But the alleged fusion point in human chromosome 2 contains far less telomeric DNA than it should if two chromosome were fused end-to-end: As evolutionary biologist Daniel Fairbanks admits, the location only has 158 repeats, and only "44 are perfect copies" of the sequence.46 [NB: --> To see a similar pattern, open up a blank Word document in something like notebook. Delete a letter or two, then try to re-open in Word. Fail. Stuff that looks like repetitious garbage can have critical function.] Additionally, a paper in Genome Research found that the alleged telomeric sequences we do have are "degenerated significantly" and "highly diverged from the prototypic telomeric repeats." The paper is surprised at this finding, because the fusion event supposedly happened recently -- much too recent for such dramatic divergence of sequence. Thus the paper asks: "If the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ?6 mya [million years ago], why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate?"47 The conclusion is this: If two chromosomes were fused end-to-end in humans, then a huge amount of alleged telomeric DNA is missing or garbled. Finally, the presence of telomeric DNA within a mammalian chromosome isn't highly unusual, and does not necessarily indicate some ancient point of fusion of two chromosomes. Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg points out that interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are commonly found throughout mammalian genomes, but the telomeric sequences within human chromosome 2 are cherry-picked by evolutionists and cited as evidence for a fusion event....
He goes on to say: In other words, the evidence from human chromosome 2 for human-ape common ancestry is ambivalent at best . . . The ambiguity is only really impressive when you consider all the evidence, as Gauger, Axe and Luskin do in Science and Human Origins. I also note that CH is not exactly unresponsive on details, here. Let me slice out one key point from CH's article on how this case illustrates how not to reason in science if you really want to adequately warrant a claim:
The site of the fusion event on human chromosome number two does not provide an obvious picture of a past fusion event. There certainly are suggestions of such an event, but it is far from obvious as evolutionists claim. Furthermore such an event, if it could survive, would have to take over the pre human population. In other words, the existing 48 chromosome population would have to die off. This is certainly not impossible, but there is no obvious reason why that would occur. There are problems with the evidence. Perhaps the fusion event occurred, but the evidence carries nowhere near the certainty that evolutionists insist it does. It is not so much that the evidence is conclusive against the event but that it is not conclusive for the event as evolutionists claim. Their interpretation is driven by their theory . . .
There's much more there. But the first clip above is enough to make the key point. Claims about a fusion event being proof of human descent by chance variation and differential reproductive success from 48 chromosome primates are grossly exaggerated. As well, there are all sorts of questions about the missing 48 chromosome human line that would obtain and on implications of mismatched chromosome numbers and what actual fusions as observed tend to do. My vote is that the tendency of Zimmer et al to duck a forum in which the case would be laid out at length without a troll patrol to muddy the waters is diagnostic. KFkairosfocus_{July 24, 2012
July
07
Jul
24
24
2012
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply