Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If you can’t find a missing link, then make one

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dr. David P. Barash writes in a op-ed to LA Times:

I also look forward to the possibility that, thanks to advances in reproductive technology, there will be hybrids, or some other mixed human-animal genetic composite, in our future.

This may seem perverse, because even the most liberal ethicists shy away from advocating the breeding or genetic engineering of half-person/half-animal. Why, then, am I rooting for their creation?

Because in these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home. The latest tactic of creationists in the United States has been to accept “microevolutionary” events, such as drug resistance in bacteria, but to draw the line at the emergence of human beings from other, “lower” life forms, cloaking their religious agenda in a miasma of pseudoscience. It is a line that exists only in the minds of those who proclaim that the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.

Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism — as our ancient human and chimp ancestors appear to have done long ago — it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life.

For the rest of the article go to When Man Mated Monkey

(HT: Krauze of TelicThoughts)

Comments
Joseph: "We have shared mistakes in humans and orangutans, yet the two do not (allegedly) have a common ancester." (MikeFNQ: "Um, where on Earth did you get that idea? You have common ancestors with every other living thing, including orang utans.") In fact, human, chimp, gorilla and orang utan are all very closely related. see "Chromosome Comparison" at www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pp.pres.html.ofro
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Joseph: “Why can morphological convergence occur regularly but not genotypical convergence?” How about a very simple case of convergence. In bacteriology, it is easy to obtain/select for a mutant with a different phenotype (dependence on a nutrient, resistance to bacteriophage, etc). You can now take this mutant and screeen for a new mutant with the original phenotype. The resulting bacterial strain is called a revertant. Once it was possible to sequence the bacterial DNA, people could identify the DNA mutation that caused the altered phenotype. Then they also checked the revertant. And in the great majority of the cases, the DNA mutation was not reversed. Instead, there was a mutation elsewhere in the gene that restored (or nearly restored) the protein function. The reason for the low probability of obtaining an exact reversion of the DNA mutation is that there are many more ways to restore the original phenotype by means of other mutations. Same thing with divergence and convergence. There are many more ways (speak: many different genotypes) to end up with a common phenotype, and it is so much more improbable to end up with the same genotype (DNA sequence).ofro
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Joseph Why is it improbable? Why can morphological convergence occur regularly but not genotypical convergence? Because you would require the same mutations and the same selection pressures. We have shared mistakes in humans and orangutans, yet the two do not (allegedly) have a common ancester. Um, where on Earth did you get that idea? You have common ancestors with every other living thing, including orang utans.MikeFNQ
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
"Most animals are not struggling for survival. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all." anonymousJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
JAD: Natural selection PREVENTS change exactly as Leo Berg recognized in 1922. Ed Blythe said pretty much the same thing in the 19th century- ie NS is a conserving force. Darwin took what he wrote and turned it so that NS is a ratcheting force. However that goes against reality- just like NDE...Joseph
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
"Darwinists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection." after Karl Marx "Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World." William Golding "An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephussi "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Natural selection PREVENTS change exactly as Leo Berg recognized in 1922. "The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard." Nomogenesis, page 406 Darwinism in all its trappings is the biggest hoax in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. "We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled." Montaigne Not this old physiologist Michel! "A past evolution undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
MikeFNQ: We’re talking about populations, not single individuals. The variation occurs in individuals. NS acts on that variation. page 11 of Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr Fifth Edition:
Natural selection is a result of differences in survival among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.
MikeFNQ: As for convergence on a genotype, well, in an infinite universe even the infinitely improbable is bound to happen. Why is it improbable? Why can morphological convergence occur regularly but not genotypical convergence? We have shared mistakes in humans and orangutans, yet the two do not (allegedly) have a common ancester.Joseph
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Every speciation was an instantaneous event, The formation of every taxonomic category was an instantaneous event. The frequency of ocurrence of such events has steadily declined over geological time until today no such events are any longer possible. Organic evolution is finished. Since I am obviously talking to the wall, I will let others speak for me. "The period of great fecundity is over: present evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or near its end. Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna? Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page71 I answer yes to each of Grasse's questions. Furthermore I long ago (1984) published what I think may be one of those mechanisms which are now lacking, the Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH). You will note that Grasse has asked questions. That is the mark of the true scientist. When did a Darwinian ever ask a question about evolution? They have no need to ask questions since they have ready made answers intrinsic in the very nature of the Darwinian fairy tale. I have sought to answer Grasse's questions by providing a new hypothesis for organic evolution which offers an explanation for both how evolution proceeded in the past and why it is no longer in operation - A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I once again state with no reservation that the neoDarwinian/Mendelian model can explain absolutely nothing more than the production of varieties. For many life forms even that cannot be achieved. Here is a brief list of things that had nothing to do with creative, progressive evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past - Sexual reproduction, Mendelian genetics, population genetics, allelic mutations and of course the sine qua non of the Darwinian hoax, natural selection. Every significant evolutionary event was instantaneous, discrete, morphologically unambiguous and entirely without intermediate states. "We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed." Otto Schindewolf "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg." ibid "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A, Davison "Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!" Gregor MendelJohn A. Davison
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Joseph We're talking about populations, not single individuals. Yes, in any species there will be many that do not interbreed - some will die, some will be infertile, and some will just be really unattractive. This does not impact upon the Biological Species Concept. As for convergence on a genotype, well, in an infinite universe even the infinitely improbable is bound to happen. It's a question of how much of a convergence I guess. The probability of large amounts of genetic convergence is vanishingly small, though not impossible. Convergent phenotype is a lot more likely than convergent genotype. There have been cases where same mutation has arisen in two lineages, for example mutations in the MC1R gene in mice and chickens. This is one point substitution arising twice, resulting in the same amino acid change. My source: Endless Forms Most BeautifulMikeFNQ
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
The humans who cannot successfully mate. The humans who cannot* pass on any of their DNA via sexual reproduction. My point being that "species" being defined as the "failure to successfully interbreed", cannot be equally applied and therefore should be tossed out or relegated to minor duty- as in being on the list of things but low on the list. *There are many humans that will not pass on their DNA via sexual reproduction, but they do so by choice. Here I am considering those who choose/ want to but cannot.Joseph
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Which humans are those?John A. Davison
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
MikeFNQ: We don’t see a marsupial mouse and a placental mouse coverging on the same genotype, we see them converging on the same phenotype. Are you saying that differing populations cannot converge on the same genotype? What would prevent that from happening? How can we tell divergence from convergence from common design from PEH? And yes "species" is very ambiguous. Some humans cannot interbreed with other humans- does that make them a diffrent species?Joseph
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
John You think the marsupial and placental had different recipes for the same general form throughout their "non-darwinian pseudoevolutionary history based on lots of recipes being unfolded" and ended up converging, through those recipes, on a similar form. Eek! Headache tablet please. Or, simply, you aren't arguing with convergence, you're arguing with the means of convergence. You think it was preloaded, along with every other step along the way.MikeFNQ
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
They didn't "end up that way" at all. That is a Darwinian pablum founded on gradualism. They were produced that way in one or a very few dramatic transformations in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The necessary information was internally available and had only to be derepressed. "We might as well stop looking for the missing lnks as they never existed." Otto Schindewolf "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed." Thomas Henry Huxley "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison By the way, it is Dr. Davison and has been for 52 years.John A. Davison
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Mr Davison So what you are saying is that over time these organisms, filling similar ecological niches, ended up looking very similar. Hmmm... How is that not, in any sense of the word, convergence?MikeFNQ
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
The marsupial and the placental mice did not "converge" in any sense of the word. That is pure Darwinian mysticism. Their immediate ancestors just happened to have read the same "prescibed" blueprints. A beautiful illustration supporting "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis." An even better example is offered by marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, appearing at sites thousands of miles apart spatially and millions of years apart temporally. Convergent evolution is just one more aspect of the Darwinian hoax. It is hard to believe isn't it? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Joseph Bearing in mind the context of the comment (hybridisation proving evolution?) we have to frame it in the concepts of evolution. The Biological Species Definition seems relevant. Speciation happens when two populations diverge to the point they can no longer interbreed. Although, I'll note, that the species concept is rather fuzzy - We're trying to pidgeon-hole a continuum after all. We don't see a marsupial mouse and a placental mouse coverging on the same genotype, we see them converging on the same phenotype.MikeFNQ
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Humans & gibbons, anyone?: Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested.
More interesting reading: Brownback's Chimerical Attempt to Curb Science Outlawing human/animal chimeras will hurt serious research I still don't see how this type of experiment, if successful, provides any substantiation for evolutionism, or how it refutes ID, YEC, OEC, or TE... I also want to point out this misrepresentation from the article: "The latest tactic of creationists in the United States has been to accept "microevolutionary" events, such as drug resistance in bacteria, but to draw the line at the emergence of human beings from other, "lower" life forms, cloaking their religious agenda in a miasma of pseudoscience." It's only the "latest tactic" if you call the 18th century the "latest century". Linneaus was a Creationist. He was trying to figure out the Created Kinds. He pointed out that variation, ie evolution, occurs and that species are NOT static. IOW Creationists have accepted "microevolutionary events" for over 200 years. This belongs in the "Creationist= geocentrist" bin. Geocentism was based on the scientific findoings of Ptolemy, who was following Aristotle's lead. And it was Creationists, Copernicus and Galileo, who showed us differently.Joseph
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
My apologies to you too ofro for me being a little ill-tempered. You are invited to offer reasoned objections to the title of my post.scordova
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
OOPS My apologies to Dr. Dembski. I'll have to be more careful about checking where the thread originated. Nevertheless, I am afraid that doesn't change the essence of my message, although I am hesitant to renew it in this case. After all, I am a bit surprised about this coming from you since from the (relatively brief) time I have been following this blog site, my impression was that your voice was one of greater moderation. I guess that an occasional emotional comment should be permissible. However, in general I am getting a bit weary of the abundance of snide comments -- on blog sites of both sides of the issue. I just might break down sometime and let go, too ...ofro
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
ofro wrote: I also have to accuse Dr. Dembski of pushing the envelope by referring to a “missing link” in the title.
I'm the one who wrote the title and posted the weblog, not Dr. Dembski. Don't post to this thread again until you apologize to him. If you have issues with my title, take it up with me, but don't go around promoting falsehoods on this thread attributing things I said to him. It only shows you're careless. The person who posted it is indicated above, and it was scordova not William Dembski. Salvadorscordova
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
I don’t understand what new information is to be gained from crossing a modern human with a modern chimp, except to possibly confirm that the two really are separate species (which, as far as I know, nobody denies). The question of speciation is a valid one, and what it takes genomically for two related species to be called separate species. However, I am sure there are many better –- and ethically much more appropriate -- non-human models to study that question. By posing this question, Dr. Barash may be able to make headlines and promote himself in the popular press, but he also demonstrates a (un)healthy lack of understanding of evolutionary questions on the biochemical level (I can’t judge his psychological work). If you want to examine the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimp, I consider it more appropriate and promising to compare their genomes and those of other primates. Having said that, I also have to accuse Dr. Dembski of pushing the envelope by referring to a “missing link” in the title. I am sure that he is aware of the modern genomic tools. A title like that is good for sending trigger-happy zealots on a blogging spree but I don’t see how it could help start a decent discussion.ofro
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
MikeFNQ: Because, Bill, as you know perfectly well, a successful hybridisation of humans and chimps would only be possible if they are sufficiently related. Related how? Via common descent of common design? MIKEFNQ: As time progresses, and they become increasingly genetically different, hybridisation would become increasingly difficult and eventually impossible. It could also be the other way- that the organisms/ populations can become more genetically similar- convergence. As for a dose of "biological reality" perhaps Dr. Barash should focus on what makes an organism what it is and then we can test the premise that one population "evolved" into another. Similarity of genomes may not mean anything. The cells that make up my skin and nerves have the same DNA yet those cells are very different. Computer programmers can write programs that look similar yet do very diferent things. Chris Hyland: If I were going to be cruel to animals to try and prove evolution there are a lot better things I can think of than that. I don't see hybridization as being cruel. Who is being hurt? However you do have a point in that we should be able to manipulate embryos- for example take a reptilian embryo and tinker with it so that you get a feathered reptile...Joseph
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
The hybridization of species and the re-engineering of extinct species is not only going to be possible, it will be imperative. If irreducible complexity can be shown to be virtually constant in previous species, when darwinists expect simpler systems, then it would be a notch on the ID belt. I read that the Neanderthal genome is going to be sequenced - what about a similar project from an ID perspective?EJ Klone
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
I dont really think we need to try and hybridise the two genomes to see how similar they are when you can just look at them. If I were going to be cruel to animals to try and prove evolution there are a lot better things I can think of than that. "Second, the Darwinist Stalin government of the USSR sponsored human-chimp hybrid research and it failed to produce viable off spring." Even if hybridisation was possible the differences in gene expression during development would kill any embryo pretty quickly.Chris Hyland
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Question: If successful hybridization of humans with nonhumans provides confirming evidence for evolution, would consistent failure of hybridization provide disconfirming evidence? Why don’t evolutionist allow for such symmetry? Because, Bill, as you know perfectly well, a successful hybridisation of humans and chimps would only be possible if they are sufficiently related. As time progresses, and they become increasingly genetically different, hybridisation would become increasingly difficult and eventually impossible. A failure to hybridise could be due to their having evolved to far to let it happen. You know this. Sometimes you allow your zeal to get in the way of your common sense. And yes, sometimes those on both sides make such mistakes.MikeFNQ
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
I for one welcome our new mixed human-animal genetic composite overlords.Tiax
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Vercors explored this theme in his book YOU SHALL KNOW THEM, written just after WWII. And Mortimer Adler revisited it in his 1961 book THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES. Barash is therefore ploughing old ground. Question: If successful hybridization of humans with nonhumans provides confirming evidence for evolution, would consistent failure of hybridization provide disconfirming evidence? Why don't evolutionist allow for such symmetry?William Dembski
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
First, the human-chimp hybrid scenerio is a Darwinist "just-so" story to explain why genes of chimp and human do not show a uniform degree of genetic drift but instead vary by millions of years. The hybrid story is a stupid "just-so" story not a "discovery." Second, the Darwinist Stalin government of the USSR sponsored human-chimp hybrid research and it failed to produce viable off spring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov_(biologist) It was a crazy idea anyway. As for this Dr. Barash, it is rather comical how some of these Darwinists become bizarre parodies of themselves.Jehu
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply