Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Same Old Darwinian Drivel

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A new study is out analyzing electric eel genomes. Guess what? The scientists are “shocked.” The results are “surprising.” If nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Darwinian evolution, then why are scientists always shaking their heads based on their latest findings in the lab?

Here’s some of the background to the study found in an
article from Phys.Org
:

The work establishes the genetic basis for the electric organ, an anatomical feature found only in fish and that evolved independently half a dozen times in environments ranging from the flooded forests of the Amazon to murky marine environments.
“These fish have converted a muscle to an electric organ,” explains Sussman, a professor of biochemistry and director of the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center, who first undertook the exploration of the electric organ almost a decade ago. The study published in Science provides evidence to support the idea that the six electric fish lineages, all of which evolved independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ
, needed for defense, predation, navigation and communication.

And the main findings from the same article:

“What is amazing is that the electric organ arose independently six times in the course of evolutionary history,” says Lindsay Traeger, a UW-Madison graduate student in genetics and a co-lead author of the new report along with Jason Gallant, an assistant professor of zoology at Michigan State University.
Adds Gallant: “The surprising result of our study is that electric fish seem to use the same ‘genetic toolbox’ to build their electric organ,” despite the fact that they evolved independently.
Worldwide, there are hundreds of electric fish in six broad lineages. Their taxonomic diversity is so great that Darwin himself cited electric fishes as critical examples of convergent evolution, where unrelated animals independently evolve similar traits to adapt to a particular environment or ecological niche. The new work, which includes the first draft assembly of the complete genome of an electric fish, the South American electric eel, identifies the genetic factors and developmental paths the animals used to create an organ that, in some instances, can deliver a jolt several times more powerful than the current from a standard household electrical outlet.

Now, just ask yourself: if you believe that the theory of Intelligent Design best explains the functioning of biological organisms, would you be SURPRISED by these results? The answer is a resounding, “No.”

From the Science article itself (behind a paywall):

Our analysis suggests that a common regulatory network of transcription factors and developmental pathways may have been repeatedly targeted by selection in the evolution of EOs, despite their very different morphologies.

Repeatedly targeted by selection—the same, old Darwinian drivel.

Isn’t it AMAZING what the environment and random mutations can bring about? In fact, it brought it about SIX times, using “essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways. I tell you, Darwinian evolution is miraculous!!!

Comments
All this anger and derision and snideness, and it turns out the whole post is based on nothing more than your own personal conviction that you would require multiple simultaneaous mutations to develop the electric organs (something the paper in no way indicates)?
Why do you think mutations don’t need to occur simultaneously?
Because there is no evidence that they do.
But when we’re talking about something as grand as changing muscle into an electric organ, we’re talking about all kinds of specific mutations, and it doesn’t seem reasonable that these mutations should occur one after another.
Because you say so? It's not as grant a change as you think, by the way. Muscles are already electric organs, even if the aren't Eletric Organs.
If NS would not kill off these one-step mutations, then they should be found somewhere in the animal kingdom, should they not? If, for each step, “fitness” is gained, then shouldn’t each of these single steps be there for us to see?
No. Mutations are only benificial or not in the context of their environment. Weakly electric fish use their EO's to navigate and communicate, that's only likely to be of use in murky habitats. Moreover, once an EO is developed it makes senese it soptimized. No one (in their right mind...) compains that there are no living reptile with half a wing, after all.wd400
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Why do you think mutations don't need to occur simultaneously? As to the lack of "randomness," again, SNPs that protect against malaria are all over the place. No need for "simultaneous" mutations. But when we're talking about something as grand as changing muscle into an electric organ, we're talking about all kinds of specific mutations, and it doesn't seem reasonable that these mutations should occur one after another. If NS would not kill off these one-step mutations, then they should be found somewhere in the animal kingdom, should they not? If, for each step, "fitness" is gained, then shouldn't each of these single steps be there for us to see? As usual, there are NO such "intermediates," either in the fossil record or in extant species. We're left simply to "believe" the Darwninsts. No, thank you.PaV
June 29, 2014
June
06
Jun
29
29
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Pav,
Still no numbers. You don’t address the high improbability of only two mutations needing to occur simultaneously. Do we brush this under the rug?
Why do you think mutations need to occur simultaneously?
If I understand you correctly, this “matters” because it means that we’re supposed to believe that something that happens “at random”, facilitated by something that “has no foresight,” ends up with the exact same solution and pathway. This defies credibility. I really don't understand what you are on about. If there was really only one way to get something done and multiple things get that job done then they necessarily take the same path. That doesn't require any foresight though.
wd400
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
wd400:
Genetic load is what you get when selection is ineffective (many alleles are not the best possible allele) and has nothing to do with this sentence as far as I can tell.
Genetic death is what you get regardless of whether selection is "effective" or not? effective:
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
Selection, according to neo-Darwinian theory, is neither effective nor ineffective. The very idea is absurd. But by all means, don't let that stop you.Mung
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
A_b:
The only “random” process is mutations, which can only act on the genome existing at the time.
Simply false. It's a real shame that we cannot simply concentrate strictly on ID here at UD. Instead we must constantly counter the mistaken ideas of Darwinists. Is there something defective in Darwinian education?Mung
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Hi Mapou, thanks for chiming in, but it's even more fundamental than shared libraries. As you point out, different applications coded in the same language may share the same libraries. But it's less likely to find different programming languages sharing the same libraries, even when developed for the same OS. A more fundamental point of commonality is the processor. And each processor has what is known as an instruction set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_instruction_sets If you are not "speaking the language" of the processor that you are trying to use to execute the application, good luck! So many applications will reduce down to a set of specific instructions that the underlying processor can process. This has to be the case for this is the way the entire system is designed.Mung
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
wd400:
Indeed, if you remove the bit about randomness then the sentence no longer contains a bit about randomness.
Yes, that's true. But!!! the "bit about randomness" happened almost immediately after the word 'pathway' and BEFORE the abbreviated words "natural selection." Why would you think the word "random" would modify a word that follows it? Strange. You write:
OK, if this is what you menat then we are left with needting to explain why this matters. Selection has no foresight, no one disputes this, but why do you think it matters in this case?
If I understand you correctly, this "matters" because it means that we're supposed to believe that something that happens "at random", facilitated by something that "has no foresight," ends up with the exact same solution and pathway. This defies credibility. Take, e.g., something that's right up your alley: protection against malaria. There are all kinds of SNPs that can so modify blood cells as to prevent the production of the malarial parasite. There's a whole slew of these, among which are "Sickle-Cell Anemia" and "Thalassemia." These are "random" solutions. No one quibble with them. It's straightforward stuff. But that's not the case when it comes to the conversion of muscle tissue to use as an electric organ.PaV
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
wd400: Still no numbers. You don't address the high improbability of only two mutations needing to occur simultaneously. Do we brush this under the rug?PaV
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Re: 47. Indeed, if you remove the bit about randomness then the sentence no longer contains a bit about randomness.
Obviously I meant that the ‘pathway’ would have to be found “at random,” since it assumed that ‘intelligence’ is not at play, an ‘intelligence’ that is capable of knowing what the “one” pathway is.
OK, if this is what you menat then we are left with needting to explain why this matters. Selection has no foresight, no one disputes this, but why do you think it matters in this case?wd400
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
” . . . when selection is ineffective . . .” You didn’t say: ” . . . when selection isn’t present . . .”, and, so, my point stands. Here’s what Wiki has to say about genetic load: Genetic load can be looked at as the probability that an organism will reach its reproductive age.[3] This is important to scientists because if genetic load gets too high the population will be in danger of going extinct because the organisms are not able to survive and reproduce. IOW, you have to have “enough fish . . . born” to allow for selection to kill off the unfit.
What you said after "IOW" is not a restatement of the eariler sentence. Genetic load is about how (relatively) unfit a population is. I think you are confusing it for substituion load, which different and not really relevant to this question (or many questions, as it happens).
You choose to NOT understand what I’m saying so that you can live in the “ivory tower” you’ve constructed within your own mind. Long live Darwinism!
Nah, see above.
The ID argument is very simple. The improbability of getting simultaneous mutations at the right spots along the length of the genome is too improbable. I
Why simultaneous?
To have simultaneous mutations in a fish genome would be, roughly, 10^7 x 10^7 = 10^14 Assuming a population size of 10^5, this means that 10^9 generations would be needed to overcome this improbability, which means 10^9 years. But complex life has only been around for 550 million years. This is ALL we need to know.
You calculations seem to assume there is only one fish lineage and that mutations are (a) ultra-specified (only two possible ones? Although your mutation rate seems wrong) and (b) have to occur n the same individual spontanaeously...
In your arrogance, you choose ignorance. How’s the air up their in the “tower”?
Well, I think the couple of examples above show that you are probably not in a position to write the aggresively sneering OP that started this thread. I have tried to read and understand your posts, but I'm afraid it's not easy to work out what you're sayingwd400
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
wd400 I asked you where I said that NS was "random". You respond:
What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found—at random—by NS?
Let's change the sentence, leaving out what I placed within dashes: What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found by NS? Does this phrasing suggest that NS is "random"? Answer: No. If I wanted to imply that NS was "random" I would have written: What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found by NS, operating, as it does, in a random fashion? Obviously I meant that the 'pathway' would have to be found "at random," since it assumed that 'intelligence' is not at play, an 'intelligence' that is capable of knowing what the "one" pathway is.PaV
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart- The way natural selection is non-random does not help you in any way.Joe
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
wd400:
Genetic load is what you get when selection is ineffective (many alleles are not the best possible allele) and has nothing to do with this sentence as far as I can tell.
" . . . when selection is ineffective . . ." You didn't say: " . . . when selection isn't present . . .", and, so, my point stands. Here's what Wiki has to say about genetic load: Genetic load can be looked at as the probability that an organism will reach its reproductive age.[3] This is important to scientists because if genetic load gets too high the population will be in danger of going extinct because the organisms are not able to survive and reproduce. IOW, you have to have "enough fish . . . born" to allow for selection to kill off the unfit. In the original remark, I wrote this:
That is, if enough fish are born and reach adulthood.
You choose to NOT understand what I'm saying so that you can live in the "ivory tower" you've constructed within your own mind. Long live Darwinism!
Calculating the probability of a pre-specified outcome over millions of years and thousands of fish lineages is obviously not possible (and not more possible under intellegent design).It’s like asking for the probability that the grand canyon would form precisely as it has, then denying erosion if no numbers were forthcoming.
So, you can't do it. We're just simply supposed to believe you, right? The ID argument is very simple. The improbability of getting simultaneous mutations at the right spots along the length of the genome is too improbable. It's the theme of Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution. You should read it. It tells us what we see happening in life---real life---not the "ivory tower." To have simultaneous mutations in a fish genome would be, roughly, 10^7 x 10^7 = 10^14 Assuming a population size of 10^5, this means that 10^9 generations would be needed to overcome this improbability, which means 10^9 years. But complex life has only been around for 550 million years. This is ALL we need to know. QED.
I didn’t answer your question because it is so poorly posed it’s hard to know what mistakes you are making in phrasing it.
In your arrogance, you choose ignorance. How's the air up their in the "tower"?PaV
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Now, where did I say that NS was random? Where?
Here: “What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found—at random—by NS?
You will notice that I already said this: that is, if enough fish are born so that the ones that don’t work die off, and so producing a “selective” effect (which is how NS works). [you know, "genetic load"--the bane of Haldane and Kimura]
Genetic load is what you get when selection is ineffective (many alleles are not the best possible allele) and has nothing to do with this sentence as far as I can tell.
How, exactly, then, does NS “navigate”? There’s only ‘winners and losers’ when it comes to life. The losers leave no progeny; the winners do. So the “pathway” that is “navigated” is “navigated” by the progeny that flows through geologic time in the form of a population.
And that's how it navigates - when selection is operating some evolutionary trajectories are much more likely than others. Those pathways that are taken are non-random.
Per the Darwinian view, this “navigation” occurring in the population is driven by “random” mutations.
That's mutationism, not Darwinism.
Now, please, give me the numbers that support your view that Darwinian evolution can successfully “navigate” its way from muscle to electric organ.
Calculating the probability of a pre-specified outcome over millions of years and thousands of fish lineages is obviously not possible (and not more possible under intellegent design).It's like asking for the probability that the grand canyon would form precisely as it has, then denying erosion if no numbers were forthcoming.
Did you balk at my phrasing because you have no math to support you?
Lol.I didn't answer your question because it is so poorly posed it's hard to know what mistakes you are making in phrasing it.wd400
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Joe, nobody has suggested that chance does not play a part in eliminating traits from the population. But that is not the same thing as saying that NS is a random process.Acartia_bogart
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart, I understand the premise. My point is that does not help you in any way. BTW chance also plays a part in the elimination process.Joe
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Joe, if all traits in a population do not have an equal probability of being passed along to subsequent generations, which ample evidence supports, then it is not a random process. The only "random" process is mutations, which can only act on the genome existing at the time. These mutations are either positive, negative or neutral. But even neutral modifications can become positive (or negative) if conditions change.Acartia_bogart
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Convergent evolution is just the evo way to avoid the obvious common design.Joe
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Acartia_nogart:
So, if certain “traits” result in a higher proportion of viable offspring, this is random?
What traits? What happens when there are several competing traits, each depends on the environment and that environment continually changes (as happens in the real world)? Natural selection is as non-random as the spray pattern made by a sawed-off shotgun shooting bird shot.Joe
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes - Erika Check Hayden - 04 September 2013 Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks. http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679bornagain77
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
WD400, “in the absence of functional intermediates” would be the key phrase there, I’d think?
Do you envision functional intermediates between muscles and electric organs - muscle cells to electrocytes? Or do you simply believe that they exist?Box
June 28, 2014
June
06
Jun
28
28
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
PaV, I think what Mung is saying is that all programs that run on a given operating system and that are coded in a specific language will have commonalities. This is because they all reuse existing libraries and OS interface. There is no point in rewriting a linked list or string object, for example. It has already been done. Intelligent Design rule #1: Do not reinvent the wheel.Mapou
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Mung: I should have added something. What about the situation where your dealing with Android apps, do you have to code for each different kind of processor, or is the knowledge that the processor is Android based sufficient. It would seem that if you have kind of the same language and same processor base that you could compare, e.g., two "learning to type" programs written by two different programmers. Maybe I'm way off here.PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Mung: You said: So regardless of the higher level programming language, Java, C#, Python, Ruby (my personal favorite), if it’s running on a given operating system and processor there will be commonalities. Did you mean to say: " . . . and processor there will NOT be commonalities."? I'm not sure how to understand it here.PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
wd400: You ask: What is one to make of a sentence like “What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found—at random—by NS?”? Here's what you make of it: you answer this question: how can this 'pathway' be traversed except---per the Darwinian view---by "random" mutations, and what is the probability that these "random" mutations will occur in all the locations they need to occur? Was that so hard? Now here's your last sentence:
Natural selection is not random and you have nothing by assertion to suppoer your (ALL CAPS) claim above.
Now I suppose you meant to say this: "Natural Selection is not random and you have nothing [but] assertion to [support] your (ALL CAPS) claim above." I don't whine about having to figure out what you meant to say. ///////////////////////////////////////////////// Now, where did I say that NS was random? Where? NS is an almost-nothing kind of thing, and it is so in this sense: NS is differential reproduction, and no more; but this only means that it is "differential death." That's all NS is. Now, if NS were "random", then no such thing as "differential death" could occur. You will notice that I already said this: that is, if enough fish are born so that the ones that don’t work die off, and so producing a “selective” effect (which is how NS works). [you know, "genetic load"--the bane of Haldane and Kimura] How, exactly, then, does NS "navigate"? There's only 'winners and losers' when it comes to life. The losers leave no progeny; the winners do. So the "pathway" that is "navigated" is "navigated" by the progeny that flows through geologic time in the form of a population. Per the Darwinian view, this "navigation" occurring in the population is driven by "random" mutations. Now, please, give me the numbers that support your view that Darwinian evolution can successfully "navigate" its way from muscle to electric organ. I asked you once. Now I ask you again. Please show me your "support" for your belief that this "navigation" is possible via "random" mutations. Did you balk at my phrasing because you have no math to support you? That's what I think. Prove me wrong.PaV
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Box, "in the absence of functional intermediates" would be the key phrase there, I'd think?wd400
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
PaV @ 6. I'd like to help, but i really did not understand the question. Coding is reductionist. It reduces down to what the processor is capable of processing. Programming languages strive to be "platform independent" but to be so they require an underlying infrastructure that is itself coded to a particular processor. It could not be otherwise. So regardless of the higher level programming language, Java, C#, Python, Ruby (my personal favorite), if it's running on a given operating system and processor there will be commonalities.Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
WD400 #25, Acartia_bogart #28. The pathway to new traits - in the absence of functional intermediates - is beyond the grasp of NS. So NS doesn't create new traits. New traits are presented by randomness aka dumb luck. I believe that this is what Pav means when he asks:
What is the probability that this ‘pathway’ will be found—at random—by NS?
Box
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
A_b:
So, if certain “traits” result in a higher proportion of viable offspring, this is random? As a statistician, I can categorically say that it’s not.
You can say it, but that don't make it so. And I don't have to be a staticstician to say it. Statistically speaking, how many statistician does it take to establish a fact?Mung
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
"In what way is it “non-random”? The way Mayr says it is non-random doesn’t help you in any way." So, if certain "traits" result in a higher proportion of viable offspring, this is random? As a statistician, I can categorically say that it's not.Acartia_bogart
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply