Phil Skell’s first post – thanking Prof. Davison and Joseph and greetings to all

Ether, Selection, Phlogiston, ESP, extrasensory perception, all three nothing but figments of an overactive human imagination. How does that grab you Darwimps? It must smart a little eh? I hope so! What are you going to do about it? Absolutely nothing, that's what! Now go back to Elsberry's Alamo and tell everyone what a fool I am. Do as you are told. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Thank you Dr Davison- truthfully your response was pretty much expected (because I understand we just don't know-yet) and I find your honesty very refreshing. Joseph

Joseph Neither I nor anyone else has any idea how many timens, when , where or especially how life was created. THAT it was created seems unavoidable to me but apparently not to the Darwimps. I am not going to speculate further on the matter except to say that at the mammalian Primate Order level we can account for a common ancestor on the basis of the reorganization of a common original chromosomal architecture. There is no need to postulate new information at that level. Beyond that little can be claimed with certainty. I am confident it will all come out in the wash with time. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

John A. Davison: In any event there is no connection beteween the two groups as far as we know. I think they were separately created myself, but that is just me. Could you please tell us and/ or do you have any papers identifying what populations were Created- ie rough number & type (verts, inverts, metazoan, etc.)? Or was it just proks and single-celled euks? Also I posted your PEH on my blog and I am asking that you just keep an eye on it so the discussion stays on course and doesn't misrepresent your views. Joseph

Bob OH Absolutely nothing in your post #39 has anything to do with speciation or any other feature of creative evolution. Accordingly it has nothing to do with Skell's commentary which is the subject of this thread. It is just the the old bait and switch technique that Darwimps are so famous for. I especially love that "Let me explain" crap. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Bob,

Flight muscles are expensive to maintain, so we might expect populations to evolve less flight if they don’t need to (this has been seen in beetles, for example). However, if the (meta-)population can only be maintaned by migration, then there is also selection pressure for migration (this has also been seen in beetles) ... it’s been well documented that butterflies in Britain are moving further north as the temperatures rise, and this sort of work suggests that this will mean that the populations at the leading edge of the advance are more mobile.

That is powerful. By the same logic I can conclude that animals that live in tropical climates, like alligators, are better adapted to warm weather than say polar bears. And I can test this by putting polar bears in the Everglades and seeing how they survive. This will be important research on how to rescue populations as the earth warms. And without Darwinism, it wouldn't be possible! Amazing. Jehu

In the big picture I didn’t see any clear heuristic connection to Darwinian principles that guided the experimental work to its goal.

OK. let me explain. The guys (and lasses) were interested in migration in the butterfly, because it's an impotrant aspect of the dynamics of the species in the Ã…land islands. Flight muscles are expensive to maintain, so we might expect populations to evolve less flight if they don't need to (this has been seen in beetles, for example). However, if the (meta-)population can only be maintaned by migration, then there is also selection pressure for migration (this has also been seen in beetles). So, this leads to a prediction that old populations will have a lower tenedency for migration than new populations. The papers were examining and testing these ideas. These sorts of ideas are important for conservation (including of butterflies), because they help us understand how populations can be rescued, and what sorts of changes we might expect. They're also connected to climate change: it's been well documented that butterflies in Britain are moving further north as the temperatures rise, and this sort of work suggests that this will mean that the populations at the leading edge of the advance are more mobile. Bob Bob OH

Whatever floats your boat Dave. I believe that prokaryotic fossils precede eukaryotic ones and know of no hard evidence to the contrary. I do not believe that prokaryotes are eukaryotes which have lost their nuclear membranes and, after discarding their flagella invented a new kind. That is just too much of a stretch. In any event there is no connection beteween the two groups as far as we know. I think they were separately created myself, but that is just me. Very few animals eat bacteria. I don't know any that can subsist on a pure bacterial diet. The Cladocera (water fleas) might be able to but I doubt it. The bacteria provide vitamins for us and we could not survive without a bacterial fauna. We need them but not as a food source. Two thirds of the dry weight of the feces is coliform bacteria and I am not interested in trying them for dinner. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

John There's little doubt that life began in the water so I don't know how your example of ecological succession on land today is relevant to the most remote past. You wrote: Also there is little doubt that the prokaryotic blue-green algae or similar prokaryotes preceeded the eukaryotic green algae. I'm not impressed with consensus science (implied by little doubt). There's little doubt that Darwinian evolution is wrong too. What evidence is there that prokaryotic algae preceded eukaryotic? Both can serve to provide oxygen for animals. Certainly plants had to precede animals because animals eat plants don’t you know. Animals also eat bacteria don't you know. DaveScot

Of course evolution is the cornerstone of biology. That does not mean the Darwinian version of the process has any validity. The Darwimps argue that any departure from the chance version is Creationism which is a perfectly valid observation. The proper conclusion is that Creationism is right on! It is as simple as that. I am very definitely a Creationist with a capital C. I'm just not a sectarian which seems to be one of my problems here as elsewhere in internet circles. Of course that suits me just fine. I enjoy the way the two major factions have at each other. It is a great spectator sport. I love it so! I doubt very much if eukaryotes preceded prokaryotes and it has nothing to do with complexity. There is another model for evolution besides the development of the individual. It is ecological succession. The first creatures to attack freshly exposed rocks are prokaryotes which serve to produce nutrients enabling algae and lichens to succeed them. Then follow the usual sequence leading ultimately to a climax oak forest in the temperate northern hemisphere. Such a system does a pretty good job of recapitulating the evolutionary sequence as revealed by the fossil record. Also there is little doubt that the prokaryotic blue-green algae or similar prokaryotes preceeded the eukaryotic green algae. They apparently were the first to produce oxygen through the photolysis of water. Without atmospheric oxygen there could have been no subsequent evolution. Certainly plants had to precede animals because animals eat plants don't you know. I am afraid it will take more than the presence of steranes to establish the evolution of eukaryotes before prokaryotes. I see no theoretical objections to them appearing together however, but even that seems doubtful. Apparently, judging from the Burgess Shale, all the animal phyla appeared virtually simultaneously including some that disappeared in short order. Every evolutionary event from speciation right on up was instantaneous and without a transitional state. The whole notion of gradualism is absurd. Evolutionary change is genetic change and there is no such thing as a gradual genetic change. Once again physiology provides the answer with the "all-or-none law." Correct me if I am wrong. I am confident that you won't because you can't. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Charlie - great link - here's the whole article beginning at the first page http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_109/ai_67410993 Forterre's conclusion of eukaryote-first is similar to my own but he found a lot of different reasons. Mine is mostly design theoretic. The most efficient designs are almost always the descendants of less efficient ancestors. A perfect example is the progression from vacuum tube electronics to transister. If prokaryotes came first I'm afraid we wouldn't be here just as had transisters come first there wouldn't be any vacuum tubes here today. This is an excellent example of how chance and necessity theory of evolution may have led to widespread bogus beliefs because it teaches that simple always precedes complex except in rare cases like cavefish losing eyes or Darwin worshippers parasites losing their brains. DaveScot

Thanks for the link, Charlie. I'm going to go read it. I found your comment in the spam filter just now. You used the word P I L L O W which has the word P I L L in it and that's enough for the spam filter to think it's an advertisement for pharmaceuticals. I should probably get rid of that keyword. DaveScot

Bob OH In the big picture I didn't see any clear heuristic connection to Darwinian principles that guided the experimental work to its goal. I rely on you to explain to me where the connection is. You said it was tradeoffs. I said tradeoffs are something that life is full of and you don't need Darwin to tell you that. Maybe you should just admit Skell is right if that's the best you can do. Butterfly migration patterns are hardly significant breakthroughs in biology either. Great Ape Fossil evidence from 3bya is almost non-existent. One ambiguous find of something that looks like it might be bacteria is exceedingly tenuous. That was the only evidence I knew of too. So there's virtually no empirical evidence that prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes. It's all based on the metaphysical belief that simpler must have preceded more complex. If the modern theory of evolution is the cornerstone of biology that ties it all together I expect you can produce some references that don't require subscriptions so everyone can read them. Please link to something public. I have no way of evaluating that which you offered. DaveScot

The claim that the ID movement has done little or no research misses the point. One of the functions of the ID movement has been to force scientists to confront weaknesses in evolution theory. Research into possible pathways for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems is really ID research. Also, I think that the co-dependence of different species -- e.g., bees and flowering plants -- presents problems for both Darwinian evolution and prescribed (front-loaded or pre-programmed) evolution. Because co-dependent species often can interact only in large numbers, it would often be necessary for large numbers of both co-dependent species to suddenly appear in their co-dependent forms at the same time and the same place. See http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/co-evolution-redux.html Dear National Science Foundation: I would like a grant of one-billion dollars for a research program for the purpose of showing that intelligent design is so absurd that it is not even worthy of consideration. Sincerely, Prof. Charles Darwin Larry Fafarman

OT, Fossil evidence and prokaryoyes.

As with most attempts to reconstruct the history of life, Forterre's argument for a eukaryotic LUCA would be greatly strengthened by fossil evidence. The oldest known fossils are the 3.5-billion-year-old stromatolites discovered in western Australia in 1980. These small, pillow-shaped structures were almost certainly laid down by living organisms, but it is difficult to determine for certain what kind of creature built them. Modern stromatolites are usually--but not always--made by bona fide prokaryotes, and the common assumption is that the ancient ones were, too. But there is no hard evidence for this. And last year Jochen Brocks and his colleagues at the Australian Geological Survey Organisation made a remarkable discovery. They extracted hydrocarbon from 2.7-billion-year-old shales in the form of bitumen and subjected it to spectrographic analysis to see what it was made of. They were surprised to find a group of compounds called steranes--hydrocarbons made by eukaryotes but not by prokaryotes. The result, they say, provides persuasive evidence for the existence of eukaryotes 500 million to 1 billion years before the fossil record currently indicates that the lineage arose. In other words, the "age of prokaryotes," which all the textbooks say preceded the age of eukaryotes, might never have existed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_109/ai_67410993/pg_4 Charlie

jpark230: "But takin your def. of it, would you concede that ID would also be fruitful heuristic in producing hypotheses?" On the face of it, I see no reason to think that ID--or some line of thought derived from ID--does not have the potential to generate such hypotheses for experimental testing. In practice, I have yet to see any such experiments. And by experiments, I mean experiments and not vague predictions about whether something may or may not some day remind us of a computer program. ds: "On symbiosis: What empirical evidence is there that prokaryotes evolved before eukaryotes?" Nothing conclusive, but there are those "living fossils" in Australia (the rock formations) that resemble the earliest geological evidence of life (>3 billion yrs ago); they are prokaryotes. They appear to have shown up first in the geological record at least. There are some phylogenetic studies that suggest eukaryotes are derivatives of achaea lineages, but I take all those super-ancient uber-trees with a grain of salt. ds: "On fruitful heuristics: Your definition of fruitful heuristic is so shallow it can be filled by simply saying we want to know how things work. " There's nothing in simply wanting to"know how things work" that generates an expectation of how sexual antagonism will evolve in manipulated Drosophila lines. Evolutionary theory has much more *specific* content. Other than that, we seem to be in disagreement as to the boundaries of modern biology. Modern biology, as I see it, is physiology, ecology, cell biology, pop genetics, molecular genetics, etc...all these things are related to understanding life's manifestations. The fact that Dr. Skell is chiefly interested in clear-cut practical benefits, such as those in pharmacology, etc, does not mean that this is the core or central emphasis of modern biology. (It's just where all the money is.) Far from it; the goal, at least since Aristotle, was understanding life as such. In that pursuit, evolution plays a large role in generating hypotheses; that is why there are multiple journals filled with the results of those tests, etc. Once you get beyond chemistry to the sphere of biology, systems are much more "historical" and contingent in nature. In my mind, evolution *is* the atomic theory of biology. Or at least the closest thing biology will ever have to such a theory. It's just that people get frustrated when the complexity of biology doesn't yield the kind of elegant universally applicable solutions found in physics or chemistry. The nature of the beast is entirely different; that's why its "atomic theory" doesn't resemble that of other disciplines. great_ape

DaveScot - There is much more to the work I posted than the use of the word "trade-off". Try looking at the big picture! Bob Bob OH

The resemblance between some bacteria and some mitochondria can be explained as simply employing the same preformed template in their construction. Furthermore there is not a shred of experimental evidence to support Lynn Margulis' endosymbiotic hypothesis. Are we to expect Nature and chance to somehow do that which we are quite unable to simulate in the experimental laboratory? Not a chance, to make a pun! Nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny ever came about through chance. Got that? Write that down. Of course you won't because you can't. You Darwimps are incapable of even conceiving of a purposeful universe. You were "born that way," "prescribed" worshippers of the Great God Chance. It is pathetic. It is hard to believe isn't it? Much more to the point, where are the responses to my challenge to cough up precursors to all those organelles I listed? You can't find them because they never existed any more than intermediates ever existed for true species or any of the higher taxa. You see, nothing in the Darwinian fantasy ever existed, absolutely nothing. The whole scheme is nothing but an invention of the human imagination. The environment played no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny except possibly acting as a simple stimulus. Even that may not be universally true. Stimuli are very interesting. No matter how you stimulate a nerve cell, it only knows how to do one thing which is to propagate an electrical impulse along its axon. Similarly, muscles contract, gland cells secrete and eggs develop, irrespective of the nature of the stimulus . That is why, when struck a blow on the head, one sees stars and hears thunder. It is called the "law of specific nerve energies." Another law from physiology is the "all-or-none law" which also applies to both ontogeny and phylogeny. That is why you will never find graduated intermediate forms. They never existed. "We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed." Otto Schindewolf, paraphrased. Referring to both ontogeny and phylogeny - "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134 The complete title to Leo Berg's book is Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law. Why then must the Darwinians insist on exempting evolution from the same criteria that characterize every other science? All of Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics proceed according to laws that were always present and were only discovered. Discovery is all that science has ever been or ever will be. That which does not exist will never be discovered. That is why Darwinism, divorced as it is from law, has never had anything whatsoever to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. So much for the biggest hoax in the history of sc ience. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true." Bertrand Russell "An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi "Men believe most what they least understand." Montaigne I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

great_ape:

I fail to see how evolution does not meet Dr. Skell’s “fruitful heuristic” criteria. It has undeniably lead to thousands of questions and associated biological experiments that would otherwise not have been performed, and, as a consequence, to knowledge that would otherwise not have been obtained.

There was a recent article--I believe it was on PhysOrg.com--dealing with the complexity of the signaling networks present in the genetic mechanisms of organisms. The author said the findings suggested that DNA acted like a computer program with a very complicated set of network instructions. He found this "surprising". Yet, I predicted, using an ID model, at Panda's Thumb, that the more scientists learned about the genome, the more it would look like a computer program, but with a complexity that would stagger anything we've been able to accomplish to date. So, from a Darwinian perspective, this complexity comes as a "surprise", while from an ID perspective, it's something we would all predict. So, obviously, I disagree with your assessment. PaV

I haven't Dr. Skell's original article in The Scientist, but I don't see what is the big deal. First, who does the Darwin invoking in experimental biology? I thought his point is that no one does this because Darwin's work is irrelelvant to experimental biology (a clear definition of which I haven't seen). Are there textbooksof experimental biology, or articles, that begin with formulaic and vapid statements of how relevant Darwinian evolutionary theory is to the field? If Dr Skell had made the same point about astrophysics and geophysics not being directly motivated by a theory of gravity, would anyone be surprised? I think his point about grand sweeping theories being of low relevance to day-to-day experimental work is valid, and portable to many areas of science. David vun Kannon

Art2 I found nothing whatsoever suggesting that the chance & necessity explanation of evolution led to the discovery of the antimalarial you mentioned. Perhaps you could provide quotes from the articles you think supports your contention. I deleted your further comments as they were more of your idea on how you are going to enlighten us. You can do it your way on your blog. Here you will back up your assertions with corroborating evidence or you will be invited to leave. DaveScot

@ great ape I see that you were trying to say that evolution is something that can produce many experiments - I see your point. But I was thinking more along the lines of say "atomic theory" where if that were not true, all of the chemical research these days would be in trouble. Or say, variation in immunoglobins from B cells and immunology research. But takin your def. of it, would you concede that ID would also be fruitful heuristic in producing hypotheses? jpark320

A few links, as requested. These may not be what anyone is looking for - unfortunately, the MVA and non-MVA pathways are not so wildly popular that they inspire web sites, blogs, and the like. Regardless, ... Possibly the original report that started the research that led to this promising antimalarial and its chemical relatives. A pdf file that talks more about the evolution of the different isoprenoid pathways. There's a whole lot more where these came from. But as introductions they're good starting points. Art2

Bob OH Have you ever heard the phrase "Life is full of tradeoffs?" It doesn't come from Darwinian evolutionary theory or whatever you want to call the narrative today. Engineering is full of tradeoffs too. To suggest that the theory of chance & necessity in evolution is the origin of the idea of tradeoffs is utter nonsense. Is that the best you can do? DaveScot

Art2 In the future, include a link that supports your point. Any of your future comments making a point and telling people to do their own research to find supporting evidence will not be published. I googled fosmidomycin and nothing came up showing that the theory of chance & necessity driving evolution helped in its discovery in any way. DaveScot

great_ape On symbiosis: What empirical evidence is there that prokaryotes evolved before eukaryotes? On fruitful heuristics: Your definition of fruitful heuristic is so shallow it can be filled by simply saying we want to know how things work. There's nothing about chance & necessity that makes it better at inspiring experimental biology than does intelligent design. Modern biology is the study of living tissue. It speaks for itself and whether it got that way by chance or design is irrelevant to how it works in the here and now. It is what it is regardless of how you believe it got that way. It can be studied to see how it works regardless of whether chance or design made it the way it is. On examples: Professor Skell asked for examples where the Darwinian narrative provided positive guidance in leading to a tangible breakthrough with practical benefit. He acknowledged it may have other virtues. There may be some intangible value in getting all the stamps organisms in their proper place in the stamp collection phylogenetic tree of life but it has no practical benefit. DaveScot

In previous studies, fosmidomycin has been Art2, you said

Google search term for the weekend - fosmidomycin. The link between the development of this drug (and its chemical relatives) and our understanding of the evolutionary origins of organelles and kingdoms is pretty undeniable. And a durned interesting one to boot.

I assume that you are talking about using fosmidomycin to inhibit the enzyme 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate reductoisomerase (DXR) to treat malaria? I guess then your so-called "undeniable" link between this drug and Darwinism is that DXR occurs in bacteria and plants but not animals? And we only know this because of Darwinism? Or perhaps you imagine that the researchers realized DXR occurs in plants and bacteria and then after consulting Darwin's tree of life determined that the enzyme would occur in Malaria but not humans? And this was only possible becuase of Darwinism? Is that what you are driving at? Jehu

Thanks Art2- I am sure what you have to say will be very underwhelming. But anyway- I was told the following is a list that also contradicts Dr Skell: experimental evolution My response @ Intelligent Reasoning was that Zachriel was missing the point. But I believe that is because he is totally sold on the "deception of evolution"-> that is the beak of the finch varies is true so that means all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce) via materialistic processes such as random variation/ mutation culled by natural selection. And HERE is an excellent article pertaining to endosymbiosis. However endosymbiotic events do not mean that organelles arose that way. And then we have- Can evolution make things less complicated?

Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand. Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise. “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

Joseph

Hi John, Don't you think demanding a reply after 4 hrs is being a bit impatient? Heck, I've been waiting 3+ years for a substantive discussion about Triticale as it pertains to your manifesto. But that's another topic .... As far as the origins of organelles, I'd be interested in your take on the work of Kwang Jeon, and especially your rationalization of why his work does not address mechanisms of endosymbiosis. (Others can chime in as well - it's another of the many interesting areas of research that we could talk about in the context of Skell's comment.) Joseph, I'll speak more about fosmidomycin and how it contradicts Skell's assertion after we hear from Skell. I would like to know where to start. Art2

John,

Just what is wrong with religious motivations?

Nothing.

They don’t irradiate anyway and sence is not an English word. Your last sentense is not a question either.

Let me reword it for you: Clearly the religious motivations of Dr Skell irradiate from his article. I am the only one to sense them? Thirdly, as I am sure everyone else understood, I was being sarcastic. Cheers. Mats

jpark320, you stated: "Those examples are trying to use molecular biology to support evolution, they are NOT examples of evolution supporting/helping molecular biology research" I disagree. Dr. Skell's main assertion, quoting from above, is that "Darwinian evolution–whatever its other virtues–does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology" In my opinion, a fruitful heuristic is one that is generative of new hypotheses that can subsequently be assessed experimentally, thereby broadening and enriching the scope of biology, and, most importantly, broadening the scope of our scientific understanding of nature in general. Such experiments are not simply "in support of evolution" so much as in support of further scientific knowledge. That is experimental biology. I fail to see how evolution does not meet Dr. Skell's "fruitful heuristic" criteria. It has undeniably lead to thousands of questions and associated biological experiments that would otherwise not have been performed, and, as a consequence, to knowledge that would otherwise not have been obtained. I suspect Dr. Skell's concept of experimental biology is narrowed in such a way that evolutionarily-inspired experiments falls outside its range. If so, why? great_ape

j.a. davision: "There is no evidence that any cellular organelle ever had a precursor simpler than itself. that includes mitochondria (they are not symbiotic bacteria)," In the case of mitochondria, Dr. davison, the evidence, quite simply, is that the mitochondrial genome, which looks and replicates like a bacterial genome, genetically resembles a specific lineage of prokaryotes more closely than it does any eukaryote or any other bacteria lineage. I'm not sure how this doesn't count as evidence to you, but I'd be willing to listen. great_ape

Mats, whoever that is. Just what is wrong with religious motivations? They don't irradiate anyway and sence is not an English word. Your last sentense is not a question either. You are beautiful. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Clearly the religious motivations of Dr Skell irradiate from his article. I am the only one to sence them? Mats

Well come on Darwimps. I am not getting any younger and neither is Phil Skell. I enjoy this silence. I have grown used to it. I love it so! "A past evoluti0n is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

There is no evidence that any cellular organelle ever had a precursor simpler than itself. that includes mitochondria (they are not symbiotic bacteria), the centriole, the centromere, the nuclear membrane, the bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic flagellum, the cell membrane, the nuclear membrane, microtubules, the prokaryotic chromosome, etc etc. I am sure I left out many others. As yet another of my challenges, none of which ever been answered, show me a single intracellular organelle that ever "evolved" from a simpler precursor with the possible exception of the eukaryotic chromosome. Have fun. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

Art2: Google search term for the weekend - fosmidomycin. The link between the development of this drug (and its chemical relatives) and our understanding of the evolutionary origins of organelles and kingdoms is pretty undeniable. And a durned interesting one to boot. What does the alleged origin of organelles have to do with what Dr Skell posted? Is it an example of Darwinian evolution? No. Perhaps that is what YOU need to figure out for yourself- that is what is being discussed. Joseph

Sorry great_ape and you too Bob OH. Creatures appeared preadapted and ready to go. There is not a single example of a new species aquiring subsequent adaptive features. Instead, the exact opposite is what has happened as typically, after a period of flourishing (typostasis), orthogenetic lines began the process of decay (typolysis) leading invariably to ultimate extinction often of whole orders of animals such as the trilobites, the giant amphibians of the past, the dinosaurs and the mammalian titanotheres. Schindewolf's typogenesis is a phenomenon of the past. Even typostasis is in question as many creatures are so specialized that they are unable to undergo adaptation to a changing environment. Furthermore, the changes that are occurring such as insecticide resistance are not evolutionary but phasic and reversible. The fossil record is the history of extinction as group after group came and went leaving no descendants. Let me list once again those factors which not only had nothing to do with creative evolution, but were in fact anti-evolutionary, serving only temporarily to preseve the status quo. 1. Mendelian genetics including population genetics. 2. Sexual reproduction. 3. Allelic mutation. 4. Natural selection. Creative evolution implemented other means to create new life forms, means that were prescribed in the genomes of those relatively few creatures that were capable of leaving descendents drastically different from themselves. Such creatures apparently no longer exist. I have identified one possible such mechanism with the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which still, 22 years later, has yet to be tested with suitable experimental material. Darwinians don't do experiments any more as they are convinced they already have all the answers. Not a single laboratory experiment has ever supported the Darwinian fantasy and fantasy is exactly what it has always been. They no longer do experiments. They are afraid to! The entire Darwinian paradigm is an illusion drive by the faulty initial assumption that phylogeny had an external cause. Such a cause cannot be identified because it never existed. Such a cause also never existed for ontogeny which provides the perfect model for creative evolution. Both ontogeny and phylogeny resulted from the controlled derepression of endogenous contained information which had been front-loaded eons ago by one or more entities far beyond our present capacity to comprehend. Only ontogeny remains. "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance" Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134 "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison John A. Davison

From some of the work done in Helsinki: Hanski, I., Erälahti, C., Kankare, M., Ovaskainen, O. & Sirén, H. 2004. Variation in migration propensity among individuals maintained by landscape structure. Ecology Letters 7, 958-966 and Hanski, I., Saastamoinen, M. & Ovaskainen, O. 2006. Dispersal-related life-history trade-offs in a butterfly metapopulation. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 91-100. The impetus for this woek was to understand the population dynamics of the butterfly, and what influences it. From this they got the idea about looking for trade-offs, an idea which springs from evolutionary theory. So, as you can see, they did some experiments. Bob Bob OH

When I follow the links to Dr. Skell's article or the letters I find I have to subscribe to Science before I can read them. Am I missing something? (When I follow the link to the continuing discussion I get an internal server error) Mark Frank

Google search term for the weekend - fosmidomycin. The link between the development of this drug (and its chemical relatives) and our understanding of the evolutionary origins of organelles and kingdoms is pretty undeniable. And a durned interesting one to boot. Sorry I haven't posted papers or links. Part of the fun of this particular subject is figuring this out for yourself. After awhile, and a few questions, I may add some specific papers that help to spell things out. But for now, Google away. (Better yet, dive into PubMed.) Enjoy. Art2

jpark320 // Oct 7th 2006 at 11:02 pm Did you guys mean to advertise “The God that Never Existed” documentary? I’d be surprised if that were the case. Comment by jpark320 — October 7, 2006 @ 11:02 pm Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but Uncommondescent does not control the Google Banner Ads on their site. russ

Nice work Dr. Skell, I wonder if he had major problems like Dr. Davison. @ Greatape Those examples are trying to use molecular biology to support evolution, they are NOT examples of evolution supporting/helping molecular biology research. Btw: Did you guys mean to advertise "The God that Never Existed" documentary? I'd be surprised if that were the case. jpark320

A quote from Dr. Skell's response letter, "Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate significantly from that state, they die. It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin's theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?" Dr. Skell, it is an honor, and rather Good timing. You will get no disagreement from me. Rather, a thanks for your kindness and patience in answering questions in the past. And also directing me to Apoptosis, or programmed cell death... A PLoS September article research of Apoptosis; entitled, "Mathematical Modeling Identifies Inhibitors of Apoptosis as Mediators of Positive Feedback and Bistability". full article: http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020120 includes a nice schematic(fig1a) and kinetic scheme(fig 1b): http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020120&id=62785 and fig 1b associated reaction table: http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=table&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020120&id=8971 from the opening paragraph... "Finally, known regulators of the pathway are shown to efficiently shift the apoptotic threshold stimulus, suggesting that the bistable caspase cascade computes multiple inputs into an all-or-none caspase output." And synopsis, "By modelling the signaling pathways involved in the initiation of apoptosis, the authors provide insight into how cells prevent spontaneous apoptosis, but yet efficiently enter cell death, once proapoptotic signals exceed a threshold. The simulations also explain how cells accurately translate a complex set of pro- and anti-apoptotic signals into a life-or-death decision." Michaels7

The following short list of publications comes to mind; at least in these cases, evolutionary theory and experimental biology are intimately connected. These took me about five seconds to come up with, so there are more--and no doubt better-- examples than these. The way I see it, without darwinian theory many modern experimental questions would simply not occur. I was always taught that the generation of interesting and empirically approachable questions was a *good* thing for science. Maybe that's just a crazy idea that has infected us youngsters. Perhaps the following won't be considered important enough, but at least they give something to think about. At the very least, they demonstrate that darwinian theory is not completely sterile in terms of inspiring experimental biology. Rice WR. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):232-4. Rokyta DR, Joyce P, Caudle SB, Wichman HA. An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus. Nat Genet. 2005 Apr;37(4):441-4. Epub 2005 Mar 20. Am Nat. 2006 Feb;167(2):E39-51. Epub 2005 Dec 12. Evolutionary Feedback Mediated through Population Density, Illustrated with Viruses in Chemostats. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Sep;19(9):1483-9. Recreating a functional ancestral archosaur visual pigment. Chang BS, Jonsson K, Kazmi MA, Donoghue MJ, Sakmar TP. great_ape