Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Microbe evolution virtually finished 2.5by ago

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

With all the major evolution done so early, microbe evolution has been retired for a very long time. No wonder we can’t evolve new pathways in the lab!

From ScienceDaily

New research shows that for microbes, large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago.

“For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory,” said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist.

All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be “fixed,” or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form in which the nitrogen can be easily absorbed by other organisms.

About 2.5 billion years ago some microbes evolved that could add oxygen to ammonia to produce nitrate. These microbes are on the last, or terminal, branches of the bacteria and archaea domains of the so-called tree of life, and they are the only microbes capable of carrying out the step of adding oxygen to ammonia. This indicates that large-scale evolution of bacteria and archaea was complete about 2.5 billion years ago, Buick said. “Countless bacteria and archaea species have evolved since then, but the major branches have held,”

“All microbes are amazing chemists compared to us.” Buick said.

Comments
aussieID: You include the "V" in your list of the processes that "can't" produce new information, but you completely miss the point that "V" stands for variety, which is produced by 50+ genetic, epigenetic, developmental, and ecological processes, all of which produce genuinely new information. In #64 jerry actually has a very concise and pretty accurate summary of the position held by most evolutionary biologists. It is clear that jerry has done some homework and understands at least the basics of what could be called "varianomics". However, jerry ends with this:
"I doubt it because it would leave a forensic trail in the genome to look for but we do not see the examples."
In fact, there is considerable evidence for precisely the kind of "forensic" evidence that jerry suggests we should look for. Scientists in the fields of genomics and proteomics are finding such evidence every day, and virtually all of it supports the hypothesis that the new variations generated by the 50+ mechanisms are virtually all "unguided", in the sense that the majority of them appear to have come about "by accident" (as shown by the fact that they have no detectable effect on phenotypes and rapidly degenerate into non-functional "nonsense" information). As J.B.S. Haldane showed almost a century ago, however, it doesn't take much of a beneficial effect to cause huge changes in allele frequencies in a surprisingly short time (geologically speaking). There is reliable "forensic" evidence that such "accidental" events as retrotranspositions can produce phenotypic changes that result in increased survival and reproduction of the individuals within which such changes have occurred. So, jerry, you are correct when you assert that "this is the theory", but you need to do some more homework, because the evidence you say we should be looking for has already been accumulating for almost two decades.Allen_MacNeill
March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
G'day Jerry, "This is not what they say." Mmmm. But that's what they SHOULD say.AussieID
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
It seems that the more we learn the less likely this idea of nearly neutral mutations in nonfunctional areas of the genome becomes. Here's a link I gave in another post I made earlier. It's a very interesting article about the human genome from Dr. MacNeill's blog. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/09/gene-is-dead-long-live-gene.htmlpharmgirl
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
"repeat after me: no random process can be expected to create information placing well-designed structures in the right place at the right time." This is not what they say. There is no right place and right time. They say random processes are busily creating changes to genomic parts that are not functional, maybe thousands of places in any one organism and this multiplied by the number of organisms represents a very large number of places where changes are being made. If just one of these places somehow turns into something that causes a morphological difference then it may now be added to the gene pool. And if this morphological change affects reproduction then it may be selected for or not depending upon the environment. And presto we have a new protein or some other form of control in the genome. There is no right time, right place or right combination. But eventually there will be a change that will affect the organisms, maybe in small ways or maybe in a much bigger way as a result of these random processes. This is the theory. Whether it ever happened or not is the question. Of course it probably happened a few times but how many and were they big enough changes to cause the formation of new complex capabilities. I doubt it because it would leave a forensic trail in the genome to look for but we do not see the examples. But this is the theory.jerry
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Allen, I will play along with your terminology that 'natural selection' is now merely the outcome and not the mechanism (please edit changes in textbooks): Variety, Heredity, Fecundity and tied up with Demography (something we use to know by shorthand as 'natural selection') still reduces and specialises information and DOESN'T produce new information. Natural selection (through the processes of V,H,F & D!) is a conservative process that usually eliminates variables. It is 'predominantly' conservative and NOT a creative force. Mutations that have been observed generally degrade the genetic information, even when so-called 'beneficial' to the organism’s survival. Losing wings off a beetle's back (through mutation) so it doesn't get blown off the island ISN'T adding new information! So, back to your original point: “That this is the case is exactly what one would expect to have evolved by natural selection …” (So, just to be clear, are you talking about the outcome or the mechanism!!!!) No it's not. Mutations and natural selection do not account for the information created in the genome. NS, through the process of through the processes of V,H,F & D, removes variety. Allen, repeat after me: no random process can be expected to create information placing well-designed structures in the right place at the right time.AussieID
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Joseph,
IMHO ID will be “proven” once it is demonstrated that genetic information is NOT reducible to the sequence, just like a computer’s information is not reducible to the medium on which it resides. For example scientists have synthesized a ribosome but it does not function. Had it been reducible to its chemical make-up it should function. IMO synthesized ribosomes will not function until we learn how to program them.
Dude, if we find out that ribosomes were programmed, I might actually cry. That is with joy of course. ^_^Domoman
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill (#48): "The idea that new variations are 'created' because they are 'beneficial' was originally proposed by Darwin’s close friend, Asa Gray, in 1860, who also proposed that this was how the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon deity shaped the process of descent with modification in order to produce life as we observe it today, and especially the production of humans via a guided process of evolution via natural selection." And Charles Darwin published a stern rebuke of Asa Gray's proposal (Darwin, "The variation of animals and plants under domestication" 1868:432, Vol.2). Charles Darwin is, of course, the founder of the evolutionary theory that was accepted; therefore his subjective opinions are the objective claims of the theory. For Allen to suggest that evolutionary theory allows the dead-on-arrival proposal of Gray is an attempt to deceive undecided Christian readers into accepting the same biological production theory that all Atheists accept. Allen_MacNeill: "William Paley (an English philosopher and theologian) and Asa Gray (an American botanist and evolutionary biologist), along with Darwin’s 'partner', Alfred Russell [sic] Wallace, should be recognized as the founders of the modern 'intelligent design' movement, not Michael Behe or William Dembski (and certainly not Phillip Johnson, whose only contribution to the movement has been in the form of propaganda, not science). Behe and Dembski have only supplied a gloss on Paley, Gray, and Wallace, who were the real originators of the 'guided evolutionary hypothesis'." Egregious ignorance or misrepresentation. William Paley in no way shape or form ever advocated evolution. He was the arch-enemy of evolution and Atheism. He was, of course, a Creationist and ordained Minister. These are basic undisputed historical "round earth" facts. Paley produced the very famous Watchmaker thesis (1802) which both Darwin (1859) and Dawkins (1986) were a reply. For Allen to say Paley advocated anything evolution is a premeditated lie. Again, this is why over half of all adults in the U.S. are anti-evolutionists, Creationists and/or IDists: evolutionists are recognized to be brazen liars. Allen can assert Asa Gray to be the founder of guided evolution. A.R. Wallace did NOT advocate guided evolution except for the production of the human brain. Wallace's views had no correspondence whatsoever to Paley ID or Dembski and Behe ID since he rejected the existence of the Biblical Theos (= Atheism). Again, for Allen to leave out these all important facts is inexcusable. Again, Allen is engaged in equivocation because he is attempting to whitewash the pro-Atheism claims of Darwinism. All Atheists would not be evolutionists if Darwinism supported God or the Bible in any way. William Paley is the undisputed sole founder of Intelligent Design. Phillip Johnson, William Dembski and Michael Behe are the founders of DI IDism. DI IDism and Paley IDism are fundamentally different. The latter plainly admits the obvious: ID = God; while the former, for the advancement of a misguided political and legal agenda, denies. The denial is subjective. And Christian scholar Phillip Johnson, contrary to the predictable opinion of Atheist-evolutionist Allen Mac Neill, has contributed greatly to science. He has published many books showing the falsity of Darwinism. RayR. Martinez
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
uoflcard, IMHO ID will be "proven" once it is demonstrated that genetic information is NOT reducible to the sequence, just like a computer's information is not reducible to the medium on which it resides. For example scientists have synthesized a ribosome but it does not function. Had it been reducible to its chemical make-up it should function. IMO synthesized ribosomes will not function until we learn how to program them.Joseph
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Joseph (53) -
And that is where the origin of life comes in: If living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via unguided processes, ie an accumulation of accidents, then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent evolution to be driven solely by those types of processes.
Flipping the question around, if it does turn out that evolution is guided, perhaps by "junk" DNA, it seems to me that this entire debate will hinge on whether the system arose naturally. While an incredible system of meta-inforation (information about information) seems obviously designed, so do some very complex biological structures, yet the thought of them possibly being designed is laughed at by a dogmatic many. Let's assume for a moment that it does turn out that "junk" DNA is actually a "warehouse" of information allowing a species to respond to changes in its environment, etc. What could falsify any naturalistic theory of origin would be if information in that warehouse existed before it was needed. Studying this would require a thorough understanding of the functions of "junk" DNA, as well as developing an encyclopedia of the entire genomes of as many species as possible. We've only got a few so far, to my knowledge, but as technology exponentially develops, it will probably get easier and easier to do this. A completely hypothetical example with no thorough knowledge of how "junk" DNA theoretically works: We discover a segment of "junk" DNA in a certain land animal that allowed it to respond to something only a land animal would encounter (air-borne particles, or something). If a species that lives on the floor of the ocean, whose ancestors have never been above water, shares the same DNA sequence, and that sequence has no other known uses, it would be fair to propose that the sequence was PRE-programmed, only explainable by one of three possibilities: - Intelligent origin of life - Absurdly lucky generation/selection of the sequence much earlier in evolutionary history - The sequence has some other unknown use, which must have been useful much earlier in evolutionary historyuoflcard
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Joseph @ 54,
*quoted user*Nope; according to evolutionary biologists, the origin of the photosynthetic patch was literally an accident.*quoted user* Do those evolutionary biologists have a way to test that premise? Or is this just more “science by decree”?
It's science by decree I'm pretty sure. Considering that "science" must be completely materialistic, of course it follows that it was an accident. Of course this would be impossible to prove, but you know, it must be true. xDDomoman
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Allen @ #28, You did a very good job at explaining, in detail, how living organisms can see, and I commend you for that. Unfortunately you completely missed my point. My question wasn't, "How does life see?", but rather, "Why does life see at all?" Why is it that the these very specific proteins can allow life to see at all? Why should they exist, as opposed to not exist? And why, even if they could exist, should they have the specific properties to allow organisms to use them for sight? Why should the universe have varying wavelengths and yet not allow for organisms to see? Why not sound waves, but no ears? Why not mouths but no substances fit to be eaten? And going even further, granting that substances exist that are edible, why should life be able to digest them, as opposed to not being able to digest them? These questions are very similar to the question of, "Why does anything exist as opposed to nothing?" It's far more likely, that if we grant the universe as a freak accident, that life should very much not be what it is. It would be more likely that the universe have sound waves, but the inability to have ears; or light waves but the inability to have eyes; or sensory organs but substances that totally escape the ability to feel; or mouths but the inability to digest; or mouths but the lack of edible substances. But then, we realize that sound waves exist, light waves exist, edible substances exist, objects can be felt, and then life just so happens (out of all other objects within the universe) to be able to respond to all these. The universe just so happens to exist so that we can hear, and see, and eat, and feel. Is not this strange, given an accidental, unintended cause of the universe? Perhaps you do not see this as a strange, but if you don't, I think you may seriously underestimate the miracle that is life.Domoman
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Joseph (53) -
Dr Spetner came to the inference that most mutations are not random, rather they are directed. To confirm that however, we need to be able to look at the programming of the organisms. For example in C++ there are statements that you cannot see by looking at the outcome- ie the running program. Therefor to figure out the program one needs to be able to download it and read it.
This reminds me of an article I ran across last year, about results from the massive study of the human genome (discovering that junk DNA is not as useless as so many assumed) (emphasis added): 'Junk DNA' not so useless after all
...the ENCODE consortium were surprised to find that the genome appears to be stuffed with functional elements that offer no identifiable benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. The researchers speculate that there is a point behind this survival of the evolutionary cull. Humans could share with other animals a large pool of functional elements – a "warehouse" stuffed with a variety of tools on which each species can draw, enabling it to adapt according to its environmental niche.
uoflcard
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
And thank you Allen. That is thank you for understanding that intelligent design is not a spin-off of Creation because of some court-case in the 1980s.
Ergo, William Paley (an English philosopher and theologian) and Asa Gray (an American botanist and evolutionary biologist), along with Darwin’s “partner”, Alfred Russell Wallace, should be recognized as the founders of the modern “intelligent design” movement, not Michael Behe or William Dembski (and certainly not Phillip Johnson, whose only contribution to the movement has been in the form of propaganda, not science). Behe and Dembski have only supplied a gloss on Paley, Gray, and Wallace, who were the real originators of the “guided evolutionary hypothesis”.-Allen MacNeill
Phil Johnson admits to his role and I have never heard Behe nor Dembski, nor Johnson for that matter, say anything about being a founder of ID. And what, pray tell, do evolutionary biologists do if not put that gloss on Darwin? Even though they know more than Darwin because the technology has advanced, they have not come any closer to answering the questions.Joseph
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Nope; according to evolutionary biologists, the origin of the photosynthetic patch was literally an accident.
Do those evolutionary biologists have a way to test that premise? Or is this just more "science by decree"?Joseph
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Allen, The book "Not By Chance" does exactly what you suggest. Dr Spetner came to the inference that most mutations are not random, rather they are directed. To confirm that however, we need to be able to look at the programming of the organisms. For example in C++ there are statements that you cannot see by looking at the outcome- ie the running program. Therefor to figure out the program one needs to be able to download it and read it. Therein lies the problem- we cannot (yet) download nor read biological programs. And that is where the origin of life comes in: If living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via unguided processes, ie an accumulation of accidents, then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent evolution to be driven solely by those types of processes.Joseph
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Allen, You come here in bursts, maybe between classes or after the children are asleep, and expound. A lot of it is good but you fail to read most of what is posted here. You are starting to preach to the choir. Yes, Allen, we are your choir but you do not know it. You have never said anything that is in conflict with ID. We have long said the debate in evolution is about the source of variation and that is the Achilles heel of the evolutionary synthesis. Your 47+ engines of variation are interesting but the real issue is whether they ever produced any novel functional complex capabilities. That is the issue. I have just read Jurgen Brosius's discussion of genetic change and do not see in it any definitive support for anything dramatic. He asserts the changes come from what he describes but the actual changes laid out and delineated are missing in action. So please do not get so patronizing when it us who have told you about the real issues in evolutionary biology for nearly two years. You are starting to learn more about evolutionary biology from us. Now before you get yourself in a huff and a puff as you normally do, this is said tongue in cheek. And reflect that there is little if anything that you say that is in conflict with ID. If you think that is not accurate, then start listing the issues and we can discuss them. But please, keep the rhetoric down.jerry
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Allen: Your argument that bacterial evolution was halted 2.5 bya because of a lack of new biochemical pathways may have some merit. But I don't see how explaining that for 215 years---out of a 2 billion year period---ice covered the earth help explains why 'evolution' was halted. What about the other, roughly 1.8 billion years? Why didn't anything happen then?PaV
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
#48 - Allen
Nope; according to evolutionary biologists, the origin of the photosynthetic patch was literally an accident.
I admit my mistake. But my fundamental argument still stands, that this accidental occurence is no problem for neo-Darwinian theory, like someone born with 6 toes instead of 5. It just happens, eventually. The period of time and number of mutating organisms is enough to make the appearance of these proteins and systems likely. This is the point of contention. btw, about a blind person/animal not being able to sense light, apparently there are such proteins as cryptochromes, which react to light. Plants have them to know when to unfurl their leaves, etc. But they are still complex systems and componentsuoflcard
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
bfast
Sometimes IDers clamp onto challenges that realy aren’t that challenging. Consider, for instance your “photosynsetic patch”. Put on a really good blindfold, one that lets in no light. Now stand in the sun. Can you tell which direction the sun is coming from. Yes, one part of your body will be warmer than the others. You will find it quite easy to turn your face towards the sun. Conclusion, any heat-sensitive nerve is a natural precursor to your “photosynsetic patch”. To add to that, we have a natural phenomenon that makes a heat-sensitive nerve particularly easy to develop by accident. That is that most chemical reaction happen faster in the presence of heat than otherwise. The challenge is not to come up with the “photosynsetic patch”.
First of all, I made a typo. I meant to say "photosensitive". I doubt "photosynsetic" is even a word, although it does sound official. To my knowledge, eyes have evolved independently many times, some of which were deep in the ocean, where the sun's radiation is much less significant. But that is beside the point(s). The evolutionary benefit Dawkins spoke of was not detection of the direction of the sun's light, but the direction of the light reflected off of predators. And the radiation coming from a predator is MUCH less significant, and is also independent of light reflection (if we stood in a dark room, you could theoretically feel the radiation from my body, although most of the heat you would feel from me would probably be convective). Also, your "easy" evolutionary pathway (which I disagree with, anyway) still ignores my original thought, which is that you skip over the most challenging part, developing the complex system to detect light. Our eyes are not heat-sensing devices. We cannot see heat (although we can see evidence of it, such as flames, red hot coils, etc.), and conversely we cannot "feel" light. A blind person can tell when they're standing in the sun, but they can't tell when I'm shining a flashlight at them (unless it is REALLY powerful or very, very close to their skin, so they can feel the radiation and/or convection). Also, your final statement that the heat would speed up the process is arbitrary regarding this argument, for several reasons. Some eyes evolved deep underwater, w/o the extra heat. Also, most neo-Darwinian critics do not posit that there was slightly too little time for these complex structures to develop, but that it would require many orders of magnitude more time in order to make their random appearance probabilistically believable (or a series of slight incremental, beneficial mutations...I'm not talking about the evolution of the eye like Dawkins explained, but the actual structures that sense light). Therefore, even if the extra heat were to double or triple the supposed rate of development, it wouldn't affect our argument. Also, we're not talking about a chemical reaction, we're talking about gene variation/mutation between generations. Does heat have some effect on this process? If so I'd be interested to learn about it (not sarcastic). Finally, this does not apply to any complex biological system that evolved in a cold environment or away from the sun's radiation, so I don't see its use here. If it is necessary/beneficial in this instance, there are countless other systems that had to have developed without the benefit.uoflcard
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
In #45 uoflcard wrote:
"...the origin of the photosynsetic patch...happened on its own, “because it was beneficial”."[emphasis added]
Nope; according to evolutionary biologists, the origin of the photosynthetic patch was literally an accident. That is, it was produced by the "engines of variation" which I have cited in comment #47. There is absolutely no hint that the mechanisms listed in those links produce variations because they are beneficial. Indeed, most of the variations they produce are either selectively neutral or deleterious. Only occasionally do such accidental "creations" have the effect of increasing the survival and reproduction of the individuals within whom they have occurred. It is only under such conditions they can become the raw material for evolutionary adaptations. The idea that new variations are "created" because they are "beneficial" was originally proposed by Darwin's close friend, Asa Gray, in 1860, who also proposed that this was how the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon deity shaped the process of descent with modification in order to produce life as we observe it today, and especially the production of humans via a guided process of evolution via natural selection. Ergo, William Paley (an English philosopher and theologian) and Asa Gray (an American botanist and evolutionary biologist), along with Darwin's "partner", Alfred Russell Wallace, should be recognized as the founders of the modern "intelligent design" movement, not Michael Behe or William Dembski (and certainly not Phillip Johnson, whose only contribution to the movement has been in the form of propaganda, not science). Behe and Dembski have only supplied a gloss on Paley, Gray, and Wallace, who were the real originators of the "guided evolutionary hypothesis".Allen_MacNeill
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
In #43 AussieID wrote:
"Natural selection, though, adds no information. It only EVER reduces it. If you are trying to invoke mutations, then all known ones are (again) a loss of information."
This quote demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. According to Darwin (and virtually all evolutionary biologists), natural selection has three prerequisites: 1) Variety (generated by the "engines of variation" 2) Heredity (mediated by the transfer of genetic material, either vertically - from parents to offspring - or horizontally - via viral transduction, retrotranscription, etc.) 3) Fecundity (reproduction, usually at a rate that exceeds replacement). Given these three prerequisites, the following outcome obtains: 4) Demography: some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others. Ergo, the heritable variations of such individuals become more common over time in populations of those organisms. Natural selection is synonymous with #4; it is an outcome of the three processes listed first, not a "mechanism" in and of itself. Ergo, the real dispute here is not over natural selection per se, but rather the properties and capabilities of the "engines of variation". I have written extensively about these here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-engine-of-evolution.html and here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html Yes, natural selection (i.e. #4, above) is conservative not creative. It produces no new genetic nor phenotypic information, which is why Darwin eventually came to prefer the term "natural preservation" rather than "natural selection". However, it is also abundantly clear that the "engines of variation" – that is, the processes the produce phenotypic variation among the members of populations of living organisms – are both extraordinarily creative and extraordinarily fecund. The real problem in biology is not producing new variation, but rather limiting the production of new variation to the point that the "engines of variation" do not cause the rapid disintegration of living systems. As just one example of this problem, the genetic elements known as transposons generate a huge amount of new genetic variation, much of which is either phenotypically neutral or deleterious to the organism. There are biochemical mechanisms by which cells can monitor the incidence of transposition in themselves, and limit its consequences (up to and including the active self-destruction of the cell via apoptosis). At the same time, there is very good evidence in the genomes of many organisms that retrotransposition events mediated by transposons have produced genetic changes that have resulted in increased survival and reproduction of the organisms in which such events have taken place. There is a large and growing literature on this phenomenon, all of which points to the inference that retrotransposition via transposons both creates new genetic and phenotypic variation, and that in some cases such variation can provide the raw material for evolutionary adaptations, which are preserved via natural selection. So, if you really want to find out where the "intelligent designer" might create new variations, you should follow the lead of Darwin's good friend, Asa Gray, and look for the telltale evidence for such intervention in the "engines of variation". Of course, you will have to show pretty conclusively, using empirical investigations and statistical analysis, that such "creation events" are not the result of purely natural, unguided processes. If you can do this, you will undoubtedly win a Nobel Prize and a Crafoord Prize (plus a MacArthur or two). Notice that this will involve looking carefully into the mechanisms by which new variations are produced, rather than pointing to the outcomes of such processes (i.e. natural selection) and simply asserting that "you can't get here from there". Simply asserting (without empirical evidence) that something can't happen isn't "doing science" at all. In fact, it's doing just the opposite...Allen_MacNeill
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
uoflcard:
But what is passed off as nothing for neoD is the origin of the photosynsetic patch, in the first place!
Sometimes IDers clamp onto challenges that realy aren't that challenging. Consider, for instance your "photosynsetic patch". Put on a really good blindfold, one that lets in no light. Now stand in the sun. Can you tell which direction the sun is coming from. Yes, one part of your body will be warmer than the others. You will find it quite easy to turn your face towards the sun. Conclusion, any heat-sensitive nerve is a natural precursor to your "photosynsetic patch". To add to that, we have a natural phenomenon that makes a heat-sensitive nerve particularly easy to develop by accident. That is that most chemical reaction happen faster in the presence of heat than otherwise. The challenge is not to come up with the "photosynsetic patch".bFast
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Allen, a few thoughts on your post about wavelengths. First, it was very interesting. Thank you for posting. Second, you missed the point of Domoman's questions. He was asking a purely philosophical question (Why is there light? Why does it have properties that allow us to sense it? etc.). He specifically said:
I’m not looking at evolution as a possible answer. This is already assuming that evolution could create life as it is.
Also, I have a problem with your final paragraph:
Compare this to the answer that ID provides: vision is the way it is because that’s how the “intelligent designer” intended it to be. Which of these answers to Domoman’s query involves detailed empirical scientific investigation, and which simply relies on unsupported assertions?
First of all, most of your post is about common descent, which ID by itself does not challenge. In fact, most that are regulars here at UD accept common descent just as neoD's. All of the actual science you mentioned is applicable to ID just as neoD. I do not see the logic in your final assertion that ID's reliance on/acceptance of purposeful design excludes it from the science you mentioned before. Finally, the only thing that separates your view from ours IS an "unsupported assertion", which is that natural selection and mutation did everything without any guidance or pre-programming. It is a common assumption for neoD's to assume that just because something is/was beneficial, it means a random genetic mutation "discovered" and exploited the benefits. See Richard Dawkin's youtube videos for the evolution of the eye. If I recall correctly, he said eyesight began as just a flat, photosensitive patch/cell, and as mutations and variation made the patch more concave, the perceieved direction of the light become more focused. It is a fascinating theory (some of which I have a hard time believing, but that is another story). But what is passed off as nothing for neoD is the origin of the photosynsetic patch, in the first place! Even the most primative eye sight is a very complex system. But of course, it happened on its own, "because it was beneficial".uoflcard
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Hallo Jerry, Your reference to Steve Jurvetson's interview was very insightful. I would like to comment about the dangerous and illegitimate claim that "beneficial change" i.e. adaptation is a natural phenomenon (I concur that information in nature's hand can only degrade, based on all observations). Adaptation is something that can only be attributed to intelligence, there is no evidence to the contrary, and "Microbe evolution virtually finished 2.5by ago" supports a design hypothesis. Just referring to the Cambrian explosion undermines the notion of naturalistic adaptation. What I suggest is that a clever guy like Steve should use analogies of intelligence and design in human behavior if he wants to extract new ideas. Evolution is such a lame and human degrading metaphor! I have to conclude with a defense of my position by making reference to various pathogens that apparently "adapt" to survive. The "pour things" are actually just DYING IN STAGES because we (intelligent humans) are attacking just a small selection of a vastly complex set of pre-existing gene code. True adaptation would create, for the pathogens and all microbes, more novel features not less. This insight will help scientists to be prepared for the consequences of their fight against pathogens, i.e. prevent them from turning "good microbes" into pathogens. They will also try to focus on deciphering the knowledge contained in more "aboriginal microbes" to come to knowledge of the current pathogens next "dying kick".mullerpr
March 6, 2009
March
03
Mar
6
06
2009
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
Allen, Allen , Allen ... I really enjoyed your writing on wavelenghts that are accessible to our planet's fauna. But you made a complete hash of your piece when trying to explain it: "That this is the case is exactly what one would expect to have evolved by natural selection ..." Living things would have to have acquired, beginning with just the raw chemistry, all the myriad of complex systems we observe today. But for the acquisition of every new system an increase of information is obviously required. Biological systems derive from information. For every postulated evolutionary advance that you write you name it as 'natural selection'. Natural selection, though, adds no information. It only EVER reduces it. If you are trying to invoke mutations, then all known ones are (again) a loss of information. If you contend that reducing the information in populations is evolution-in-action, then you are misguided. If you really believe that the 'downhill' process of natural selection can take you further 'uphill', then what you believe mutations can achieve that 'lose' information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but who thought he could make it up on volume.AussieID
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
Allen McNeil: "Vertebrates see red, green, and blue, while insects see green, blue, and ultraviolet because two of our visual pigments (chlorolabe and cyanolabe) evolved before the divergence of insects and vertebrates from our common ancestor, while the third visual pigment evolved independently in the two groups, resulting in two different sets of perceived colors." That's a nice story and 'could' be true. Plausible enough but so is this: 1) All of life's information was already present at the beginning stages of life. 2) Each life form broke off from the mother (common parts) and took with it what was needed to fulfill its niche needs. 3)So insects because they required the green, blue, AND ultra-violet vision had those modules put in their bag and said their farewells to the mother. 4)Vertabrates, not needing ultra-violet vision didn't get that module but instead got the red pigment module, more suitable for their niches. Just as plausible a scenario. Commom parts breaking off the mother and recombining in a seamingly endless array of life forms created what we have today. And how was the mother made? Dividing and condensing light.Oramus
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
For modern microbe evolution done in the laboratory see the following article where they eventually hope to replace all the genes in a bacteria with completely new DNA. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2977 Be patient with the link. It took a few minutes for it to load. The interview is with a venture capitalist named Steve Jurvetson who graduated in 2 1/2 year first in his class at Stanford in EE and then got a masters in EE and MBA from Stanford. So he is a wunderkind. I do not know if any of their stuff is published since they are a private concern.jerry
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Allen, how is the idea that things work with the stuff that they have around to work with is inconsistent with any school of thought? That we needed to have a presence of a nourishing substance before being nourished is consistent with the idea of God making manna in the desert and Jesus making a feast out of a few loaves and fishes. Now, this is not to support miracles, but to show how universal some idea of this conception is. Along those lines, I've never heard ID proponents suggest that a cell needs something that is not present to function and thus proves design. So, on the speculative level of Domoman's doubts, that organisms work with what they can be proven to have dependence on says nothing about ID--there is no counter case, to be shown in the light of the pragmatic "it works with what it has available". One can be a complete phenomenologist and believe that the perception of what something is depends on the matrix that we perceive it to depend upon as a continued phenomena. There is really no extra "scientific" force behind the principle.jjcassidy
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
I think it is futile to dispute the main (rather vague) outlines of the actual history of prokaryotes and eukaryotes as summarized by Allen MacNeill, based on the actual fossil record and reasonable biochemical speculations. I think Allen came up with an adequate explanation for the original topic's question: why major microbial evolution was over 2.7bya. No more available biochemical energetic pathways. In other words, the basic structure's potentials were exhausted. Not an issue for ID. The first reliably established eukaryotic fossils are apparently algal mats, which are speculated to be already fully functioning, complex, eukaryotic algae. The "best guess" currently is the very first arose somewhere between slightly less than 2bya and 2.7bya. How did the this vast amount of new biological information specifying eukaryotic nuclei, plastids in algal cells, mitochondria, etc. etc. come about from stochastic fluctuations plus selection? No problem for Darwinists, for whom this is a dogmatic assumption.magnan
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
That this is the case is exactly what one would expect to have evolved by natural selection, which can only work with what is available.
But the original population(s) of single-celled organisms didn't have eyes/ vision systems. Come to think of it they didn't have bones either. So the question is how did we get eyes/ vision systems and bones from the sightless and bone-less? And another question is if we do not know what genetic sequence(s) are responsible for the development of the human vision system*, how can we test the premise that it evolved via an accumulation of variants, ie modifications? *Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:
Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.
Joseph
March 5, 2009
March
03
Mar
5
05
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply