Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

Allen, "Given a genetic code and the machinery to translate it into biological structures and functions (i.e. given 1, 2, 3, above), then it seems to me that 4 necessarily follows." That's one of the big issues I have with this whole arguement. Given a genetic code then..... How can we just say that? The genetic code is information and meta-information of specified complexity. The only thing we have discovered that can produce similar information and meta-information of specified complexity is intelligence. The genetic code is the biggest reason to believe there is intelligence behind what we see. How can we ignore that fact, skip past it and then just discuss the items you listed?ellijacket_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

But I am getting the feeling that Allen is saying that in addition to just a reshuffling of the genetic elements during punctuated equilibrium we are also getting a lot of intense variation creation to the gene pool during the supposedly punctuated equilibrium events. And somehow this is also facilitated by the small populations and isolated gene pools which are more limited.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

David Wisker said "“Could it also be possible that what we are seeing (especially in the fossil record) is not actual increases in levels of variation, but instead periods of increased levels of ecological opportunity for variation to be “segregated” into unique populations?”" And Allen MacNeill said "Exactly" This is just micro evolution and not dissimilar than what artificial selection could create with a specific gene pool.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Allen and jerry, i think we have a misunderstanding, mainly due to the strange definitons of terms used here on UD. first, Punct eq is fundamentally about species-level changes in the fossil record. this fits the definition of macroevolution (evolution at species level and above) used by evolutionary biologists. However it does not fit that used by jerry et al, who define macroevolution as evolution of novel complex traits (let's call the former macroEB and the latter macroUD.) thus, all of the patterns described by GOuld would fit under jerry's terms as microevolution. GOuld pointed out that separation of higher level taxa occurred in a graded manner with lots of intermediates between, for example, orders, that may contain novel complex traits. thus evolution of higher level taxa did not fit the pattern of PE. in other words evolution at the species level is jumpy but at the higher levels is smooth. bc novel complex traits are almost always associated with higher level divisions, the "jumpy" pattern of PE applies to macroEB but not to macroUD. FOr example, feathers didn't appear all at once but by a gradual accumulation of branches in different families and genera of theropods. but there are v few transitionals at the species level. so there were "jumps" between species but smooth gradations between higher taxa and the novel complex trait.Khan_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

I should mention this aritcle by Lewontin: Santa Fe Winter 2003
The difficulties of the concept of fitness are, unfortunately, much deeper than the problem of frequency and density dependence. The problem is that it is not entirely clear what fitness is. Darwin took the metaphorical sense of fitness literally. The natural properties of different types resulted in their differential “fit” into the environment in which they lived. The better the fit to the environment the more likely they were to survive and the greater their rate of reproduction. This differential rate of reproduction would then result in a change of abundance of the different types. In modern evolutionary theory, however, “fitness” is no longer a characterization of the relation of the organism to the environment that leads to reproductive consequences, but is meant to be a quantitative expression of the differential reproductive schedules themselves. Darwin’s sense of fit has been completely bypassed.
Moalem's book has basically shown that Darwin's original notion of fitness has been bypassed, and reinforced the objection Lewontin has put forward about the nebulous definition of fitness. Sickness has become a virtue, and that is contrary to Darwin's conception of virtue.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

19 Allen_MacNeill 04/27/2009 9:16 am e In #16 sal wrote: “The Edge of Evolution, which suggests protein-protein binding is a good example.” A good example of what? Please elaborate…
I think you've scored a point on me with that one. I think it deserves more elaboration on my part, but I don't think I have a strong answer at this time.
Alternatively, the similarites in convergent lines are also suggestive of similar developmental mechanisms, as indicated by evo-devo. So, what kind of empirical evidence must one have to decided between these two hypotheses? Simply showing that convergence happens doesn’t count; you have to show how such convergence happens (mechanisms, please, not airy speculation).
We might be able to eliminate one hypothesis, but estabilishing ID outside of a circumstantial case, I don't think is possible. The ID case can be overturned (falsified) by the discovery of a mechanism, but formally proving it is another story. So I think you score another point. Perhaps a more basic question, and one that I should have asked you earlier. Does biology look designed to you. If it doesn't look designed to you, then it explains why we may be talking past each other. If it doesn't look designed, then all the other ID arguments would appear moot.
So, what kind of empirical evidence must one have to decide between these two hypotheses?
We have to show that Evo-Devo doesn't explain the majority certain convergences. Body plans may be realized by some of the same control genes but as Nelson and Wells argue, the developmental pathway (the order and mechanics of construction) are different. Evo-Devo might argue that development occurs with the same vocabulary, but I think ID proponents will argue that the same features are arrived at using different recipes. Perhaps this is legitimate topic of much more elaborate discussion and learning. Certainly for me. Formally speaking, elimintating Evo-Devo wouldn't establish ID anymore than it would establish the Flying Spaghetti monster as a cause. Empirically speaking, I think we can legitimately argue whether something looks designed (in as much as things look analogous). Ultimate causes and mechanism would probably be formally inaccessible. In such cases, some like Trevors and Yockey, have opted for declaring questions of mechanisms as "undecidable". I think all that can be formally done is establish the strength of analogies and falsify possible mechanisms. Suggesting that intelligence is a mechanism is a tough call since there are good arguments against the idea that intelligence is reducible to mechanism in the first place. So you may ask "why do you,Sal, defend ID as science". Answer: I usually don't. I think ID is true, but you won't see me attempt to make formal case, only a circumstantial one.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

In #28 Dave Wisker asked:
"Are you saying that these punctuations are due to actual increased levels of variation?"
No; just the other way around – that increased levels of variation (due to the relaxation of stabilizing selection) are a consequence of the event that initiated the "punctuation", rather than the cause. At least most of the time. There are cases of "punctuation" in which a new adaptive zone was opened by the formation of a novel variation (the origin of eukaryotes and the origin of multicellularity come to mind). In such cases, the novelty precedes (indeed, drives) the "punctuation".
"Could it also be possible that what we are seeing (especially in the fossil record) is not actual increases in levels of variation, but instead periods of increased levels of ecological opportunity for variation to be “segregated” into unique populations?"
Exactly.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

For myself, I would prefer not to hazard a numerical estimate of the percentage of a given organism's phenotype that is the product of "adaptive" selection. On the contrary, what is interesting to me is why some components of the phenotype (and some components of the genotype, not necessarily correlated) seem stable over time, while others "drift" at velocities close to those predicted by the neutral theory. If the former are what "Darwinists" refer to as "adaptations", then what makes them such is semantics, not science. Unless, of course, one believes that science is completely reducible to semantics...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

In #27 sal wrote:
The neutralists (like Nei) have suggested the apperance of design is merely an artifact of our imagniation, a postdictive projection. Thus, in their mind, there nothing that is need to be explained in the first place. This is very close to Shermer’s view.
It is also very close to mine. However, if this position is the most warranted, given the evidence available now, this means that the core of both ID and the core of the "modern synthesis" – that all significant evolution is adaptive – is gone, and all that remains is descent with modification, about which most of us agree.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Hi Allen, I was inteersted in this snippet from an earlier comment--#26--(my emphasis):
No; not necessarily. I believe that punctuated equilibrium is a “fact”. That is, it appears that evolutionary novelty originates during relatively brief periods of rapidly increased variation, interspersed among relatively long periods of evolutionary stasis during which stabilizing selection is the norm.
Are you saying that these punctuations are due to actual increased levels of variation? Could it also be possible that what we are seeing (especially in the fossil record) is not actual increases in levels of variation, but instead periods of increased levels of ecological opportunity for variation to be "segregated" into unique populations?Dave Wisker_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

To follow up on #14, would some ID supporter please explain why it is necessary to use ID to explain all of evolution, when it seems clear that all that is really necessary for evolution to occur is: 1) variety (for which there more than enough “engines of variation” to do the job) 2) heredity (does anyone wish to argue that this doesn’t happen?) 3) fecundity (again, does anyone wish to argue that this doesn’t happen?)
That is a good question, and I will attempt an answer since I think it is on the minds of many. You've actually forced me to clarify my thinking. There is no question Dennett's algorithm (as you describe) will induce change. Certainly, Moalem has given good evidence that natural selection can induce changes in a population (like sustaining the frequency of sickle-cell anemia, diabetes, high colesterol, favism, etc.). The illustration I like to use is that of an intelligently designed car. Throwing rocks at the car will damage it. This is unquestionably a "change over time". But is it the sort of change that explains the other features of the car? We might argue, based on population genetics and Kimura's math, that Dennett's algorithm applies to maybe 1% at most to the population. But even granting that, we still have no requirment to invoke ID. So why invoke ID. My best answer at this time is that ee are still confronted with the appearance of design. The neutralists (like Nei) have suggested the apperance of design is merely an artifact of our imagniation, a postdictive projection. Thus, in their mind, there nothing that is need to be explained in the first place. This is very close to Shermer's view. But the problem of convergence and that of computers seems to resist the post-dicitive viewpoint. Let us say for the sake of argument, design in OOL and computers should be a separate question to that of the rest of biological evolution. Granting that, I think the problem of convergence still circumstantially suggests design. That was not lost upon Simon Conway Morris
believe the topic of convergence is important for two main reasons. One is widely acknowledged, if as often subject to procrustean procedures of accommodation. It concerns phylogeny[supposed evolutionary lineage], with the obvious circularity of two questions : do we trust our phylogeny and thereby define convergence (which everyone does), or do we trust our characters to be convergent (for whatever reason) and define our phylogeny? As phylogeny depends on characters, the two questions are inseparable ... Even so, no phylogeny is free of its convergences, and it is often the case that a biologist believes a phylogeny because in his or her view certain convergences would be too incredible to be true. During my time in the libraries I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, "remarkable", "striking", "extraordinary", or even "astonishing" and "uncanny" are common place…the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.
Selection has been used to explain convergence, but if selection can be shown to be a minor mechanism, then is strengthens (not necessarily proves) the case for ID. It should be apparent then, why I have put a lot of stake in Kimura and Nei's mathematical arguments against selection being a large component of evolution. They have shown that perhaps Dennett's algorthim is applicable to only a small portion of evolution. I put the figure at around 1%, but I'm quite willing to amend that view as more information arrives. If I may say, even if ID is true, aside from philosophical or theological considerations, "so what?" My view is that convergence will help us advance medical science. If ID proponents are able to exploit convergences or species comparisons to advance medical science, then ID might have a legitimate place in empirical science. Until such time, I think ID will mostly be outside the official mainstream. Philosophy and theology have a way of being divisive, but useful medicine and healing will have a way of fostering cooperation, imho.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

in #21 jerry asks:
"...is it your experience that [punctuated equilibrium] is just micro evolution but done more quickly when a split-off population with a more limited gene pool produces morphological changes and essentially just produces a new variant?"
No; not necessarily. I believe that punctuated equilibrium is a "fact". That is, it appears that evolutionary novelty originates during relatively brief periods of rapidly increased variation, interspersed among relatively long periods of evolutionary stasis during which stabilizing selection is the norm. How brief such periods of increased variation and novelty are can be as short as a single generation (as happens in polyploid plants) or a few thousand generations (a very short time indeed, even for sequoias). In other words, my understanding of the evidence for macroevolution indicates to me that it operates by fundamentally different mechanisms than microevolution, over time scales that are not necessarily correlated with the timescales of microevolution. The "modern evolutionary synthesis" was almost entirely focused on the mechanisms of microevolution, to the point that some of its adherents refuse to recognize macroevolution to this day. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; it only means that those individuals who deny its existence either don't understand the evidence for it, haven't encountered such evidence, or disbelieve it. I am currently working on a much more detailed examination of the mechanisms of macroevolution, which I will post on my blog. However, as sal pointed out, it is final exam time, and my students come first (after my family, of course). Also, I am producing a series of videotaped lectures on the Darwinian revolutions for Cornell, plus a new course on the evolution of the capacity for religion (also for Cornell), and so will have less time to participate here for the next two months. That is, if I can only tear myself away...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

In #21 jerry wrote:
"One of the many anti ID commenter’s here said that punctuated equilibrium only produces micro evolution and no macro evolution resulted as a result of it."
I completely disagree, and would argue that this is a long-undermined (and continually weakening) position among die-hard holdouts for the mid-20th century "modern evolutionary synthesis". jerry also wrote:
"...large morphological changes can happen with small changes to a genome but would not consider such a change as macroevolution"
In which case, your definition of "macroevolution" is so different from that used by evolutionary biologists as to be essentially useless. Clearly, if large phenotypic changes resulting from relatively small genetic changes do not qualify as macroevolution, then essentially nothing would. Ergo, if your assertion about ID supporters is correct, then they (like the old holdouts for the "modern synthesis") are simply asserting (without evidence) that microevolution is all there is. That and magic, that is...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

I should say that ID does not dispute all of micro evolution. It has no quarrel with natural selection or your engines of variation. Only what they are capable of producing.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Allen, ID accepts all of micro evolution. ID is limited to a very small subset of evolution and to OOL and to the origin of the universe.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

In other words, once again it seems to me that you are pushing back the problem of the origin of design to the origin of the mechanisms of developmental convergence, which (like the origin of life and the genetic code) are probably permanently beyond our reach (developmental mechanisms do not fossilize). So, we are left with the developmental mechanisms as they exist now, and must explain how they produce the convergent (and divergent) structures and functions for which they are the ultimate regulating mechanisms. Notice that word mechanisms. That's what it all comes down to. Unsupported and untested (and probably untestable) hypotheses about the origins of those mechanisms isn't science. When (and if) such mechanisms can and have been tested, they will then (and only then) be considered part of science.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Allen, just as an aside while we have your attention here. One of the many anti ID commenter’s here said that punctuated equilibrium only produces micro evolution and no macro evolution resulted as a result of it. Now I know our definition of macro evolution is different from what many who support Darwinian processes hold. Many of us define it as the origin of novel complex capabilities. We recognize that large morphological changes can happen with small changes to a genome but would not consider such a change as macro evolution. So is it your experience that PE is just micro evolution but done more quickly when a split-off population with a more limited gene pool produces morphological changes and essentially just produces a new variant.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Alternatively, the similarites in convergent lines are also suggestive of similar developmental mechanisms, as indicated by evo-devo. So, what kind of empirical evidence must one have to decided between these two hypotheses? Simply showing that convergence happens doesn't count; you have to show how such convergence happens (mechanisms, please, not airy speculation).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

In #16 sal wrote:
"The Edge of Evolution, which suggests protein-protein binding is a good example."
A good example of what? Please elaborate...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

In #15 joseph asserts:
"The theory of evolution cannot even explain the evolution of the eye/ vision system…"
This is a baseless assertion. Unless you can produce or cite valid and convincing evidence to the contrary, it is no different from saying that the Eye Fairy produced the eye/vision.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

To follow up on #14, would some ID supporter please explain why it is necessary to use ID to explain all of evolution, when it seems clear that all that is really necessary for evolution to occur is: 1) variety (for which there more than enough "engines of variation" to do the job) 2) heredity (does anyone wish to argue that this doesn't happen?) 3) fecundity (again, does anyone wish to argue that this doesn't happen?) and 4) demography: differential survival and reproduction Given a genetic code and the machinery to translate it into biological structures and functions (i.e. given 1, 2, 3, above), then it seems to me that 4 necessarily follows. Ergo, it is up to ID to show empirically that somehow it does not. That is, despite the fact that all three prerequisites are met, that somehow they just aren't enough to produce the demographic changes that form the foundation for descent with modification.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

This is why, rather than simply asserting that things are designed, I have consistently asked “what structural and functional characteristics do unambiguously designed objects and processes (such as heat-seaking missles or thermostats) have, which can then be used as criteria to determine which natural objects and processes possess such structural and functional characteristics and may therefore legitimately be considered to be the product of design?
Personally I don't think you've gotten good answers. My answers: 1. The Edge of evolution, which suggests protein-protein binding is a good example. 2. Abel's paper which argues for a non-trivial computer as a necessary requirement for life 3. Convergent architechtures with good degrees of complexity (such as that described Homology a Concept In Crisis The reason I like convergence, is that one is alleviated of worries of post-dictive mental projections. The similarites in convergent lines are suggestive of design (much like how we recognize when a melody is being repeated, we know their is a great degree of deliberation versus mindless improvisation). Nelson and Wells use this example:
Since homologies cannot be explained by equating developmental information with DNA sequences, some biologists have attempted to explain it by attributing it to similar developmental pathways. Although DNA determines the amino acid sequence of proteins essential for development, such pathways also involve other factors, such as the localization of cytoplasmic constituents in the egg cell, physical constraints resulting from the size of the embryo, and so on. (Wells, 1992) Efforts to correlate homology with developmental pathways, however, have been uniformly unsuccessful. First, similar developmental pathways may produce very dissimilar features. At the molecular level, it is well known that virtually identical inducers may participate in the development of non-homologous structures in different animals. (Gilbert, 1994) At the multicellular level, the pattern of embryonic cell movements which generates body form in birds also generates body form in a few species of frogs. (Elinson, 1987) And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species. (de Beer, 1958) Clearly, similar developmental pathways may produce dissimilar results. Second, and more dramatically, similar features are often produced by very different developmental pathways. No one doubts that the gut is homologous throughout the vertebrates, yet the gut forms from different embryonic cells in different vertebrates. The neural tube, embryonic precursor of the spinal cord, is regarded as homologous throughout the chordates, yet in some its formation depends on induction by the underlying notochord while in others it does not. (Gilbert, 1994) Evidently, "structures can owe their origin to different methods of induction without forfeiting their homology." (de Beer, 1958, p. 151) Indeed, as developmental biologist Pere Alberch noted in 1985, it is "the rule rather than the exception" that "homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states" (see Figure 2). (Alberch, 1985, p. 51) Production of similar forms from dissimilar pathways is also common at later stages of development. Many types of animals pass through a larval stage on their way to adulthood, a phenomenon known as indirect development. For example, most frogs begin life as swimming tadpoles, and only later metamorphose into four-legged animals. There are many species of frogs, however, which bypass the larval stage and develop directly. Remarkably, the adults of some of these direct developers are almost indistinguishable from the adults of sister species which develop indirectly. In other words, very similar frogs can be produced by direct and indirect development, even though the pathways are obviously radically different. The same phenomenon is common among sea urchins and ascidians (see Figure 3). (Raff, 1996) Even the classic example of vertebrate limbs shows that homology cannot be explained by similarities in developmental pathways. Skeletal patterns in vertebrate limbs are initially laid down in the form of cartilage condensations, which later ossify into bone. The sequence of cartilage condensation is the developmental pathway which determines the future pattern of bones in the limb. Yet similar bone patterns in different species (i.e., homologies) arise from different sequences of cartilage condensation. (Shubin, 1991) In the words of biologist Richard Hinchliffe: "Embryology does not contribute to comparative morphology by providing evidence of limb homology in the form of an unchanging pattern of condensation common to all tetrapod limbs." (Hinchliffe, 1990, p. 121) The constancy of final patterns despite varying pathways has prompted developmental biologist Günter Wagner to suggest that homology might be due to conserved developmental "constraints". (Wagner, 1989) Wagner's critics, however, object that this notion is too vague to be useful. Although developmental constraints emphasize the fact that embryos are capable of producing similar end-points by a variety of routes, they do not constitute a naturalistic mechanism accessible to empirical investigation. So embryology has not solved the problem of homology. In 1958, Gavin de Beer observed that "correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of the parts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmental mechanisms by which they are formed." (de Beer, 1958, p. 152) Subsequent research has overwhelmingly confirmed the correctness of de Beer's observation. Homology, whether defined morphologically or phylogenetically, cannot be attributed to similar developmental pathways any more than it can be attributed to similar genes. So far, the naturalistic mechanisms proposed to explain homology do not fit the evidence.
The list of what would include, but not be limited to: 1. protein-protein binding 2. computer systems 3. examples of convergence Salscordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

The theory of evolution cannot even explain the evolution of the eye/ vision system...Joseph_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

jerry: Insofar as FSCI is applied to the translation functions of the genetic code, I agree. That is, unless it can be convincingly shown that it is the case that there is a necessary relationship between the various levels of the genetic code and translation machinery, I believe that the origin of this code and the machinery that translates it is a genuinely open question. I also believe that, being "open", such questions do not have answers that can be decided using empirical methods. Given the foregoing, however, it is still clearly the case that virtually the whole of biology is completely untouched by an ID theory that addresses only the origin of the FCSI of the genetic code and its translation machinery. After all, Darwin never mentioned these, and yet his theory (albeit in highly modified form) still adequately explains virtually all of the descent with modification that has occurred since the origin of the genetic code and its translation machinery. At least that's the way it seems to me and to virtually all other evolutionary biologists (and most other scientists).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

"Animals, by contrast, apparently have an “onboard” program that, if they are not killed by a particular age, will kill them via internal dysregulation." It seems fairly wide spread and there is no non design reason for it. Why. I gave a design reason and it fits what we see.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

sal asks:
"Is it fair to say Spandrels De Saint Marco is closer to your position than that of Daniel Dennett or Modern Synthesis?"
Yes, indeed, except that I believe that Gould, Lewontin (and later, Vrba) were, like Darwin, unwilling to take their principles to their logical conclusion: that adaptations (like species) are a figment of the human imagination, and do not actually exist in nature (or, to be even more precise, do not have to exist in nature).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Life has a specific design characteristic as described by Allen MacNeill above, namely the transcription and translation process. Such a process is found nowhere else in nature and while not exactly like the guidance system of a heat seeking missle, it does direct very complicated processes. They fit the two criteria set up 1) they must precede the objects and/or processes whose assembly and operation they specify and regulate, (protein assembly but other processes too) 2) like all forms of information, such programs must “run” in some kind of physical medium while specifying and regulating the assembly and operation of the object and/or process. (A very good description of DNA) ID has given a name to this phenomenon, namely FSCI or functionally specified complex information.jerry_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

In #6 jerry wrote:
"Natural selection exists but there definitely seems to be a built in regulator on how much change it can effect."
Indeed, there is; it's called the environment. So long as environments are limiting, then stabilizing selection (the kind recognized by Edward Blythe) tends to predominate among all populations, and ecosystems reach a condition of stable equilibrium. However, if something happens so that environments are not necessarily limiting (as would typically happen to the survivors of a local, regional, or global mass extinction event), then there is little or no limit on the amount of variation that may arise among the members of such surviving populations. As is quite clear from the analysis of the "engines of variation" (see the list here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html ), there is far more than enough variation to get almost anywhere you can go in "evolutionary design space". Ergo, new, stable forms arise not by means of natural selection, but rather as a consequence of the necessarily temporary relaxation of stabilizing selection as a result of changes in the environment.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Allen, As always I'm so delighted to hear from you. I hope I haven't started this thread at an inconvenient time since I know final exams are coming up. I know that is the case for me. With some degree of embarassment, for the 3 years that I've known you, I must admit I've been rather slow in understanding what you think is a correct view of evolution. Is it fair to say Spandrels De Saint Marco is closer to your position than that of Daniel Dennett or Modern Synthesis? If you are undecided, I think that is also a fair position, as I'm undecided on a few matters myself. I suppose in all my eagerness to attack Natural Selection, I forgot to ask you what paradigm you think is closest to the truth. Gould and Lewontin:
An adaptationist programme has dominated evolutionary thought in England and the United States during the past forty years. It is based on faith in the power of natural selection as an optimizing agent. It proceeds by breaking an organism into unitary "traits" and proposing an adaptive story for each considered separately. Trade-offs among competing selective demands exert the only brake upon perfection; non-optimality is thereby rendered as a result of adaptation as well. We criticize this approach and attempt to reassert a competing notion (long popular in continental Europe) that organisms must be analyzed as integrated wholes, with Baupläne so constrained by phyletic heritage, pathways of development, and general architecture that the constraints themselves become more interesting and more important in delimiting pathways of change than the selective force that may mediate change when it occurs. We fault the adaptationist programme for its failure to distinguish current utility from reasons for origin (male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small); for its unwillingness to consider alternatives to adaptive stories; for its reliance upon plausibility alone as a criterion for accepting speculative tales; and for its failure to consider adequately such competing themes as random fixation of alleles, production of non-adaptive structures by developmental correlation with selected features (allometry, pleiotropy, material compensation, mechanically forced correlation), the separability of adaptation and selection, multiple adaptive peaks, and current utility as an epiphenomenon of nonadaptive structures. We support darwin's own pluralistic approach to identifying the agents of evolutionary change.
My own view is that Natural Selection cannot account for much more than 1% of the features of living organisms. That figure is from calculations by Haldane, Kimura, and others. There is simply a shortage of population resources. Darwin's "pluralistic view" suggested Natural Selection as the primary agent (accounting for 50% or more). I don't think that is possible. Salscordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

In #6 jerry wrote:
"After all being older means having the opportunity to have more offspring and would according to the NS paradigm be one most likely to have more survivors. But we do not see organisms getting older as time goes on."
Actually, we do observe precisely this correlation. That is, the larger and more complex an organism is, the older the average age of that type of organism. There is a well-established correlation between body size and average longevity in most organisms (not just animals). Furthermore, the largest fungi and plants (but not animals) are effectively immortal. That is, if nothing external kills them, there is no internal process that will kill them, and they effectively live forever. Obviously, given the vicissitudes of life on Earth, eventually something does kill even the oldest and largest fungi and plants, but this may not happen until they are tens of thousands of years old. Animals, by contrast, apparently have an "onboard" program that, if they are not killed by a particular age, will kill them via internal dysregulation. Find that program and alter it, and immortality is quite literally a possibility, and then human life becomes a true Hell on Earth...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply