Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig

_{William Dembski

December 9, 2009

Atheism, Philosophy

1}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy}

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

William Lane Craig is not only one of the world’s leading Christian apologists but he has actually made outstanding original contributions to philosophy. Yes, Craig publishes popular-level books. Unlike Dawkins, however, who in 20-years plus has been purely a popularizer (of Darwinian evolution, materialist science, and atheism), Craig continues to publish at the highest levels of the academy addressing scholars of the highest caliber (and gaining their respect). Dawkins, by contrast, increasingly appeals to the lowest common denominator. It’s in this light that Dawkins glib dismissal of Craig should be viewed:

Comments

"I don’t see how on one hand predictions of functionality are important to ID but at the same time non-functionality is unimportant to ID." We will have to read the specific quotes or predictions. My understanding is that the claims were not absolutes, that is everything will have function but there will be considerable function in the non coding regions. That does not mean that every single nucleotide will be part of some functional process. Though it may be. But take my word for it, junk DNA having function is not an essential part of ID. At least that is my impression and I have been reading about it for over 10 years. Some people jumped on the the ENCODE project that showed a large amount of the junk DNA was transcribed. I do not think ID would have any problem with the wikipedia discussion of junk DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA You seem to be looking for absolutes. I am not aware of any.jerry_{December 22, 2009
December
12
Dec
22
22
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Junk DNA is not an essential thing to ID.
If you say so. But according to this website's section "Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design", which I assume is meant to be widely accepted:
As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction: Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions. By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).
I don't see how on one hand predictions of functionality are important to ID but at the same time non-functionality is unimportant to ID. Note that the functionality of "junk" is, in fact, one of only two ID predictions listed in the "Frequently raised but weak..." page.paulmc_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

"This is strong evidence for the junk DNA hypothesis – again something that ID claims does not exist." Junk DNA is not an essential thing to ID. Some here are very tied to the DNA in a human being mostly functional. However, it is not essential to ID that it is. It would be interesting to know what % of human DNA is functional but the absolute or percentage amount is not tied to ID being true or not. That you keep on bringing it up is indicative that you do not understand ID. "For the nth time, being aware of something is not an argument." Being aware of something is indicative that we have thought about it. Do you think you are the first one to point out these things. ---------- I have written several long comments about what ID is about. Here are four of them: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326046 There are three consecutive comments in the previous post. What ID is interested in. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-commenters-win-one-for-the-gipper/#comment-299358 Here is a comment about why ID science is no different that regular science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029 Here is a comment that every ID debater should make when he debates ID. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 I am not sure if everyone here agrees with them but I believe that anyone who publishes on ID agrees with them. At least I have not seen anything in writing they have written that disagree with them.jerry_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Joesp h @ 74
Reference please.
Well, if you go to the FAQ on this website, which I assume is sanctioned by the more scientific of the lot here, the writers claim that: "But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations" and "Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations.".
Ya see ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. Design is a natural process.
Perhaps I should have said naturalistic processes. I assume you are not dismissing a supernatural designer...paulmc_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Rather than offended by your slights I am frustrated by your disingenuity.
And we are well aware of the C value paradox so your continued allusion to Allium is puzzling and irrelevant at best unless I missed something which is always possible.
For the nth time, being aware of something is not an argument. I am not making a standard point regarding the c-value paradox i.e. this amoeba has more DNA than a human etc etc. The point is that between very similar species within a genus, there can be substantial variation in the amount of DNA - in the case of Allium one species has 4.5 times the amount of DNA. While disparate comparisons (e.g. protist to human, plant to human) can be waved away by saying we don't know what the non-coding DNA does, it is pretty hard to do the same with closely related, superficially differentiated species within a single genus. There is no plausible reason why one species needs 450% of the DNA of its congener to do just the same things. This is strong evidence for the junk DNA hypothesis - again something that ID claims does not exist.paulmc_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

paulm c:
ID claims that natural processes cannot produce a new functional enzyme.
Reference please. Ya see ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. Design is a natural process.Joseph_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

paulm c:
Incidentally, you have provided no evidence actually supporting the ID proposition.
I offer just a glimpse of support for ID (including a testable hypothesis): Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued The Design Inference in Peer-ReviewJoseph_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

This is getting to be a joke as it usually does. Present the evidence for naturalistic evolution. No one in the history of the planet has done so. You have presented information for changes in genomes and few would dispute that. So don't posture as if you are offended at my slights. If naturalistic evolution works it must work on animals and it must produce major changes not trivial stuff. And we are well aware of the C value paradox so your continued allusion to Allium is puzzling and irrelevant at best unless I missed something which is always possible. The path from microbes to man requires massive changes and would leave a trail, millions of trails if it happened gradually. I said here and said many times that if naturalistic evolution is true for all evolution, it will have to leave trails. Apparently all the trails were lost, most before the Cambrian. So you ask what would convince me, lots of obvious trails. Some like the material subducted under the continents will disappear for ever. But many, many will remain and be obvious if they happened.jerry_{December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

So you're happy to discuss both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but you're fussy about which eukaryotes you will include. Sounds fairly arbitrary to me. I have already laid out twice why the Allium genome is interesting. It's pretty straightforward, and not related to their being plants. If you don't want to dicuss that - it doesn't appear you've so much as read it - I think we're pretty much done here. Incidentally, you have provided no evidence actually supporting the ID proposition. You've only nitpicked areas you perceive to be lacking in naturalistic evolution, without even being able to provide an unambiguous picture of what one would expect if naturalistic evolution were true. This despite my stated aim to have a debate that considered the balance of evidence.paulmc_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

"And, for the fifth time – what of the Allium genomes? Junk or not?" I have already said that I am going to keep my discussions to animals. I haven't a clue about Allium genomes. Why don't you lay out what this genome entails and why you are impressed by it and maybe someone will discuss it with you. But I do not plan to. If you want to discuss microbes, go ahead and we can see what you think is impressive about the changes you point out.jerry_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

It is interesting that over the course of a couple posts, without providing any particular reason, your view on nylon degrading bacteria changes from:
The nylon example has been discussed here several times though I personally do not know the details.
to
As interesting as the nylon eating microbes are, they do not qualify.
So a novel metabolic pathway isn't of interest to you. You also say:
My guess is that any changes you can document to microbes would not qualify. But we would have to look at each one. None so far have reached the level of complexity that they would defy naturalistic processes and thus, be ID.
But how can I give you examples that defy naturalistic processes, when none exist? Any changes I document are naturalistic. What would be convincing from you would be some recent change that did defy naturalistic processes as proof of ID. That would be compelling for your case. Pointing to every known case and saying that they are "naturalistic" does not help your case at all. And, for the fifth time - what of the Allium genomes? Junk or not?paulmc_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

"I would go so far as to say the concept of frontloading is utterly preposterous to the point of not being worth discussing." I am not an adherent of front loading but some are and you will have to discuss it with them. So far I am still waiting for examples of things developing naturally that are leading to complex novel characteristics. As interesting as the nylon eating microbes are, they do not qualify. My guess is that any changes you can document to microbes would not qualify. But we would have to look at each one. None so far have reached the level of complexity that they would defy naturalistic processes and thus, be ID. Some here will probably disagree with me on this but I am not aware of any. Somewhere I have discussed what ID is in detail. There are a couple of long posts I have made and maybe you should read them before commenting on what ID is. My guess you have a poor understanding of it. However, these comments were made a few months ago and I haven't the time to find them right now. Maybe some time after Christmas. Till that time I can only peak here every now and then.jerry_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Re frontloading: Well, I certainly should have looked that up before posting. It is a very strange definition of "naturalistic means" you have employed there. That'll teach me. I would go so far as to say the concept of frontloading is utterly preposterous to the point of not being worth discussing.paulmc_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Don’t you think that 20 million years or more to get a small change in a species so that they cannot interbreed has any relevance on how fast complicated systems can arise? I would be hard pressed to show how to show how the variety and complexity of new organisms could arise if small changes took 20 million years. Three 20 million year periods and we are back to the dinosaurs.
No, I don't think that is relevant. Firstly, complete genetic barriers are not essential to species originations. This is because geographic isolation, assortative mating and other asepcts of sexual selection are phenomena that contribute to the reduction of gene flow, and are no less important than genetic barriers. You equate genetic barriers to a small change, but complete, rather than incomplete, genetic barriers can take a long time to arise; fertility is lowered but might not be entirely eliminated. Hence the extensive hybridisation we see in the animal and plant kingdoms. Even a partial reproductive barrier is sufficent to reduce gene flow substantially. If you take a look at the literature on the origination of species, you will find that 20 my is not the estimate of the time it takes an average species to originate. One estimate for mammals, for example, is 1 my. More importantly, you talk about 20 million years like it's a very long period of time in evolution. It is not. What major complex systems have arisen since the time of the dinosaurs, considering there were already placental mammals at this time? Has any evolutionary change in this period fallen into the category that you define as macroevolution? This demonstrates my original point. These systems are not arising all the time, they are very rare, as they should be under naturalistic evolution. Now, for the fourth time - what about Allium and junk DNA? I realise you guys have in the past said 'but it's not junk' and certainly I agree there is functional stuff there amongst the rest. However there are several critical points that indicate both naturalistic origins and non-functional sequences (and I will quote myself from earlier): 1) Stochastic population-genetic processes related to population size substantially control the amount of excess, non-coding DNA present in an organism, not its level of complexity. There are population size thresholds below which genome expansion occurs by escaping purifying selection; genome size correlates closely and negatively with population size. Intron size also correlates negatively with population size. e.g. Lynch and Conery (2003), Lynch (2006, 2007). 2) Extremely similar species with no important functional differences can have highly divergent amounts of DNA. Consider these congeneric plants: Allium altyncolicum has a genome comprising 6.9 Mbp, while its congener A. ursinum comprises 30.9 Mbp. There is not a rational explanation why plants that only differ in superficial appearance should have such substantial differences (450% difference in # of base pairs) in genome size unless one of them comprises substantially more filler than the other. See Ricroch et al. (2005). 3) Rates of molecular evolution in the majority of non-coding DNA are substantially elevated from coding regions and functionally important non-coding regions. This indicates the absence of purifying selection and therefore the absence of function. e.g. Kimura (1983). Finally, you said:
And by the way some ID supporters believe every species on the planet arrived by naturalistic means. Many believe in a concept called front loading.
If I read you right, then good for them. They must understand the nature of the evidence for organic evolution. Doesn't ID sound more like God of the gaps when this is one the camps?paulmc_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

"AFAIK, the models go to great lengths about how, where and when." You have just made the case against naturalistic evolution. You said models not evidence. ID agrees there are models but ID agrees that there is no evidence. If there were ID would shut down and everyone could go home. The how, where and when are all just told stories which is not science. So thanks for supporting our point of view.jerry_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Sorry, J should be jCabal_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Jerry:
I would think that a good debater on origin of life and evolution could rip Dawkins apart. We constantly challenge anyone here to present the case for naturalistic evolution, Darwinian models or otherwise and get nothing.
Debating origin of life with Dawkins or any other scientist wouldn't be a good idea. Science knows no reason why God couldn't have done it. Science knows no reason why nature couldn't have done it. End of debate. The case for naturalistic evolution, Darwinian models ...? It has been presented in scientific literature for 150 years. If you find that insufficient, debate won't be of any use. AFAIK, the models go to great lengths about how, where and when. Where can I find corresponding scientific information about ID?Cabal_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100%
I would make perfect sense when you move the first sentence to the end of that paragraph. Unfortunately, DaveScot, UD's most prominent front loader, doesn't post here any more.osteonectin_{December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

"ID claims that natural processes cannot produce a new functional enzyme." No it doesn't. It says it is relatively rare not impossible. "The original thinking was that the mutation was the result of a frameshift, although this is not current." Why don't you outline the source of the new protein. Obviously it did not appear out of air. "This is one of several cases where we have strong recent evidence of this happening. You know little of it but that does not change the reality." Why don't you lay out these several cases and the process how each arose. Obviously you do not have to do everyone but three or four in addition to the nylon example would be interesting and then point to the others. "I am not particularly interested in a stanford course on iTunes." Fine, but you asked about the source of the 20 million years. "What I want to know is why you think this is relevant." Don't you think that 20 million years or more to get a small change in a species so that they cannot interbreed has any relevance on how fast complicated systems can arise? I would be hard pressed to show how to show how the variety and complexity of new organisms could arise if small changes took 20 million years. Three 20 million year periods and we are back to the dinosaurs. "I would defy you to apply this definition to plants, in which the barrier is sometimes weak even between genera." We are not interested in plants as much as animals. So let's keep it too animals for the time being. Whatever works must work in animals. "This is wholly irrelevant. 20 million years does not define the time it takes for new species to arise, it defines a time until sufficient genetic barriers to gene flow exist." I am sorry but this does not make sense. If it takes 20 million years before two populations become different this implies that up to 20 million years they are essentially the same population that gene flow wouldn't correct and thus, can not have much difference between them. So where are the new complex capabilities? They cannot all of sudden appear and they cannot be in both populations all the time. "The lack of firm barriers between species is, in my view, another line of evidence for naturalism. Certainly if the designer was attempting to create barriers between cleanly delineated species, the effort has been poor" This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100% And by the way some ID supporters believe every species on the planet arrived by naturalistic means. Many believe in a concept called front loading.jerry_{December 19, 2009
December
12
Dec
19
19
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

I do not know much about nylon eating microbes and don’t have time now to research it but I know it has been discussed here several times and it went no where. One of the moderators here named Patrick was very knowledgeable about it but Patrick has not been around for awhile. As I remember it was a frame shift in one of the genes of the microbe that was behind this ability and whatever happened was of little concern for ID. But as I said I know little about it.
Regardless of what you know and don't know about Flavobacterium, this strain has evolved new enzymes that are implicated in degrading nylon, an artificial product. What is important is evolving a new metabolic pathway. The original thinking was that the mutation was the result of a frameshift, although this is not current. ID claims that natural processes cannot produce a new functional enzyme. This is one of several cases where we have strong recent evidence of this happening. You know little of it but that does not change the reality. Again, you focus on what genetic change causes it, but if small changes can have important effects then this is of little consequence. The end result is the bacteria evolved a new metabolic pathway.
They will discuss the meaning of species and how long it takes to form a population that cannot inter breed with the other populations. This is called the biological definition of species and has its problems but is considered one of the key concepts in speciation. Why, because it means that the population can no longer share its genes with any other population. They use a 22 million year estimated time. I think they actually said 32 million years but in their writings used 22 million years.
I am not particularly interested in a stanford course on iTunes. Nor do I need a briefing on species concepts. What I want to know is why you think this is relevant. You have already defined macroevolution as being unrelated to speciation, so what does the length of time until firm barriers to gene flow arise have to do with the evolution of complex novel capacities? Speciation is the creation of barriers between gene flow via one of many means. In the biological species concept, genetic barriers. The ability of closely related organisms to share genetic information is widely recognised and I would defy you to apply this definition to plants, in which the barrier is sometimes weak even between genera. This is wholly irrelevant. 20 million years does not define the time it takes for new species to arise, it defines a time until sufficient genetic barriers to gene flow exist. The lack of firm barriers between species is, in my view, another line of evidence for naturalism. Certainly if the designer was attempting to create barriers between cleanly delineated species, the effort has been poor. But there is much more relevant genomics material to discuss as outlined in my two previous posts. Allium?paulmc_{December 19, 2009
December
12
Dec
19
19
2009
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

paulmc, When you have time go to itunesU and under Stanford, look for courses. Click for a listing of all courses and one of the last ones listed is about Darwin. There are about ten 2 hour lectures and one is given by the Grants of Galapagos finch fame. There you will find a discussion of the concept of species which is similar to discussions at hundreds of other places. They will discuss the meaning of species and how long it takes to form a population that cannot inter breed with the other populations. This is called the biological definition of species and has its problems but is considered one of the key concepts in speciation. Why, because it means that the population can no longer share its genes with any other population. They use a 22 million year estimated time. I think they actually said 32 million years but in their writings used 22 million years. As soon as I say this there will be typical anti ID person ready to pounce on this definition with all sorts of objections. But in reality it is the best definition of species there is and yes it has its many problems such as population A can breed with population B which can breed with population C but A cannot breed with C. And many populations could artificially breed with a different population but will not do so under natural condition for a variety of reasons. So for finches on the Galapagos islands, they can all inter breed but some won't but if they were some how forced to, then they would be fertile. So some will classify these finches as separate species yet they can inter breed. It really doesn't matter which you believe is the best description of species, what it does show is that it takes an awfully long time for these so called species to really separate and be different. By the way all that is discussed in the Stanford lectures that is empirically based is consistent with ID. It is when people speculate from the data that ID will have objections. ID will have no problem with anything the Grants have found. It is really not the issue that is under debate. I do not know much about nylon eating microbes and don't have time now to research it but I know it has been discussed here several times and it went no where. One of the moderators here named Patrick was very knowledgeable about it but Patrick has not been around for awhile. As I remember it was a frame shift in one of the genes of the microbe that was behind this ability and whatever happened was of little concern for ID. But as I said I know little about it.jerry_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

It takes over 20 million years to get a new bird species
Considering the average species lifespan is 1-10 MY, your numbers seem rather implausible.
The nylon example has been discussed here several times though I personally do not know the details. Others here may be able to better comment on it then I can. Though from what I remember there were small changes that resulted in the ability to digest nylon, not the formation of new protein systems.
The nylon example is gene duplication and modification, creating new functional enzymes that ID advocates have repeatedly stated are too complex to occur naturally. To a certain extent, your response to this indicates that you don't care about complex new function, only about complex causes. As I tried to explain, complex outcomes can have simple causes.
A single SNP in a gene will produce a different protein but this process is not thought of as producing a new gene family as the new protein is often very similar to the previous protein. Now frame shifts will cause the protein to be very different and as such is a different protein.
But a series of SNPs or indels made to a duplicated gene can produce a novel protein. Look at, for example, the phyochrome family in the higher plants. Both gymnosperms and angiosperms have several genes in this family, and they are the result of duplication. The angiosperms phyotochromes are amazing; they allow the detection of the proximity of other plants (via a very simple mechanism) and help explain their success in shaded areas vs gymnosperms. They have overlapping function, rather than neatly delineated ones as well, what you might expect from natural processes.
Naturalistic evolution has to produce trails and each step on the way is viable and has no reason not to exist for ever and there should be an uncountable number of branchings as sub population went off on new ways.
In this, are you alluding to the fossil record? I assume you are. What you describe is exactly what GG Simpson describes in his important works on paleontology.
Show how some branching gradually changed to genomes to what we see now.
So you're not discussing the fossil record. But you want to discuss species in the past tense. I'm not sure I follow your line of thought. I know of no ways to examine extinct genomes.
There should be evidence of all those gene duplications, frame shifts etc. leading to something.
Yes, but consider the 400 gene products in human that we can deduce are resultant from frameshifts. Is 400 novel genes from this process too small a number to be of significance? What are they meant to lead to that they are not? Or are you suggesting they are all junk? If I 'repeatedly' bring the genome up, it is because the genome provides good evidence for naturalism, that I have not read convincing arguments against. Stating that the ID community is aware of the features and changes I note is not an argument against them. I look forward to discussing the Allium genomes I mentioned in my post above upon your return. BTW I have no problems with adopting your definition in this discussion, but it would be better if the ID community came up with a different term for what they mean in the future, or just stuck to discussing the 'evolution of complex systems' vs other evolutionary change. Again, I'm sure you accept that your definition of macroevolution is not the biology standard. Compliments of the season!paulmc_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, How about: Macro-evolution — generally used in the literature to address the theory of body-plan level changes and associated or claimed evidence. Is that acceptable?Nakashima_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, How appropriate to bring up Alice in Wonderland. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” If you are not going to use words with their agreed upon meanings, so that readers can check your assertions against published papers, then the whole discourse takes on this Ministry of Truth air. Darwinism is obviously and tautologically false, because we have always been at war with EastAsia. Mr Jerry, when you are back from your weekend, maybe you'd like to rejoin the English speaking community here at UD. You also might want to drop the imperial 'we' from your messages. Happy Holidays!Nakashima_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

jerry: It takes over 20 million years to get a new bird species, and that is one that is really not much different from its cousin.
That is the not the correct scientific usage of the term "species." For instance, there is more than one species of Galápagos Finches, even though the Galápagos Islands are only 5 to 10 million years old.
jerry: We define macro evolution her as the origin of novel complex capabilities. Try eyes, flight, nervous systems, hormonal systems with all its controls, livers, the building of systems of proteins that interact with each other to produce a new capabilities, etc.
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.
jerry: Naturalistic evolution has to produce trails and each step on the way is viable and has no reason not to exist for ever and there should be an uncountable number of branchings as sub population went off on new ways.
And that is what we see. All life is related through a pattern of divergence from a common ancestral population. See also Letunic & Bork, Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL), Bioinformatics 2006.
jerry: We all just agreed that speciation is a specious concept and represents a trivial advance in the microbes to man progression.
Small, but not trivial. By the way, that's the entire point. Each change is relatively small. Only from the perspective of time can we see how jaw bones in reptiles evolved into the delicate mammalian middle ear.Zachriel_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

"A well documented case would be the relatively short term evolution of novel metabolic pathways in bacteria that degrade nylon." The nylon example has been discussed here several times though I personally do not know the details. Others here may be able to better comment on it then I can. Though from what I remember there were small changes that resulted in the ability to digest nylon, not the formation of new protein systems. It has not been brought up for a long time and not one of the anti ID people use it or try to defend it. Maybe this will renew its discussion. A single SNP in a gene will produce a different protein but this process is not thought of as producing a new gene family as the new protein is often very similar to the previous protein. Now frame shifts will cause the protein to be very different and as such is a different protein. ID does not dispute these as they are fairly common. The question is whether this or any of the other gene modification processes produces the array of proteins seen in organisms and how they are coordinated to produce a rather intricate process. Some, yes. All, extremely unlikely. "Finally, a question you never answered: what exactly would you expect to see if naturalistic evolution were real that is lacking? Be as specific as you can." Naturalistic evolution has to produce trails and each step on the way is viable and has no reason not to exist for ever and there should be an uncountable number of branchings as sub population went off on new ways. Else you have to argue for sudden appearances and that is more ID than naturalistic. Where are the trails and branchings? There should be tens of millions of them. Try producing a few. Show how some branching gradually changed to genomes to what we see now. And by the way as I said several times already we are aware of all the modifications to the genome that you repeatedly bring up. This not something new to us. But if they ever played a role in macro evolution (our definition) they would leave a trail too. There should be evidence of all those gene duplications, frame shifts etc. leading to something. Where are they? Have to run. Back sometime this weekend. PS - our definition is the only one that makes sense in this debate. To try to fall back on a definition of macro evolution that represent trivial changes is in reality to admit one does not have anything. It is microbes to man, not one bird species to another.jerry_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

"Sez who? I thought macro-evolution included speciation." Sez those who support ID and recognize what the debate is about. Only in the Alice in Wonderland world the anti ID people inhabit does one put such a low hurdle on the bar that is macro evolution. It takes over 20 million years to get a new bird species, and that is one that is really not much different from its cousin. We define macro evolution her as the origin of novel complex capabilities. Try eyes, flight, nervous systems, hormonal systems with all its controls, livers, the building of systems of proteins that interact with each other to produce a new capabilities, etc. We all just agreed that speciation is a specious concept and represents a trivial advance in the microbes to man progression. It is something that ID does not object to but it is also something that is irrelevant. To suggest that macro evolution is equivalent to speciation is an unbelievably disingenuous statement but what can one expect from Nakashima. He knows what the argument is about. All Nakashima can produce is trivia or irrelevancies. If he can find a small contradiction, his day is made. He has tilted with the ID monster and has triumphed. It is all that the anti ID people can produce. So in a discussion on evolution Nakashima wants to start an argument over what is meant by macro evolution. He knows that there is no way he can deal with our understanding of it so he want to bring out the frequent ploy of using the trivial interpretation of macro evolution. We know why he always wants to argue about the trivial when he knows what the debate is about and knows he cannot produce anything. Typical Nakashima. He should be embarrassed to try something so transparent.jerry_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Regarding Muller: you say my quotation is irrelevant; I say he demonstrated that IC is not valid as a design inference. Your argument against this is that naturalistic macroevolution does not occur so Muller is mistaken. Rather than irrelevant, then, my quotation of Muller is contingent on the remaining case for naturalistic evolution. You ask:
Could you tell me how the changing the percentage frequency of an allele in a population by random process (drift) or by environmental pressures (selection) is macro evolutionary in any way?
Quite simply because evolution is a population process. Regardless of the nature of a genetic change - again we could be talking about a substitution or a gene duplication here - it must be transmitted through the population (I suppose unless the mutant can form a new population). In the event of a gene duplication there is an increase in information, if a trivial one. However, the premise of naturalistic evolution is that such duplications (which are fairly regular events, I'm sure you agree) occasionally lead to specialisation. Hence, if the sequence changes (via mutation) and results in a new function, then we can contend that a more complex evolutionary process has occurred in comparison with a nucleotide substitution.This is also fairly common: in humans, there are more than 400 and in mice more than 100 gene products that are the result of duplications and subsequent frameshifts. It is worth bearing in mind that these are the duplication/frameshift events that can be deduced. The further they are in the past, the less likely we are to be able to detect them via their similarity with current sequences. A critical point here is that with patterns of nucleotide substitution, we cannot relay the circumstances arising in the origins of, say, a new bodily organ. Such events are long in the past, and likely occurred over long periods and much nucleotide substitution has happened since. Incidentally, the amount of substitution that can occur in homologous genes that still function in substantially similar ways indicates that such genes do not require precise information to operate. Much of this is of course synonymous change, but a substantial proportion for species that have diverged over long periods of time is amino acid substitution. Nonetheless, if your standard of empirical evidence is needing to see the actual nucleotide changes that resulted in the origin of a new organ, or the substantial improvement of a primitive organ to a modern one, then what you ask for is not possible. This does not discount the plausible naturalistic mechanism for it to occur. Hence we need to examine what we observe and decide whether naturalistic or super-naturalistic explanations are the better fit. Returning to duplications: the pattern of duplication and re-use does not prove naturalistic evolution, but we are considering the balance of evidence. The prevalence of duplications and deep genetic homology appears to be evidence for naturalistic evolution as it is the pattern predicted by natural processes acting within their limits. Such limitations would not affect a designer - certainly not a supernatural one. Now, if we had a lot of duplications as a basic necessity for complexity, we would expect to be able to see evidence of this, including random undirected remnants of such events. In fact, when we look at the "higher" organisms we see precisely this. A feature of multicellular eukaryotes is a greater or lesser extent of junk DNA. Certainly there is a non-coding DNA that is functional via regulation, but there is a lot of junk in a lot of complex genomes. Currently, at least, would be my only caveat. A reactivated pseudogene could potentially have a function, after all. I know your first instinct is going to be to tell me that I have no basis to call it 'junk' - after all, who do I think I am - the great cosmic designer? Yet, there are several interesting lines of evidence for this: 1) Stochastic population-genetic processes related to population size substantially control the amount of excess, non-coding DNA present in an organism, not its level of complexity. There are population size thresholds below which genome expansion occurs by escaping purifying selection; genome size correlates closely and negatively with population size. Intron size also correlates negatively with population size. 2) Extremely similar species with no important functional differences can have highly divergent amounts of DNA. Consider these congeneric plants: Allium altyncolicum has a genome comprising 6.9 Mbp, while its congener A. ursinum comprises 30.9 Mbp. There is not a rational explanation why plants that only differ in superficial appearance should have such substantial differences (450% difference in # of base pairs) in genome size unless one of them comprises substantially more filler than the other. 3) Rates of molecular evolution in large sections of non-coding DNA are substantially elevated from coding regions and functionally important non-coding regions. This indicates the absence of purifying selection and therefore the absence of function. Finally, a question you never answered: what exactly would you expect to see if naturalistic evolution were real that is lacking? Be as specific as you can.paulmc_{December 18, 2009
December
12
Dec
18
18
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Mr Paulmc, Well, that settles it then. The capacity for complex novels has only arisen in the last thousand years or so, starting with Murasaki-san's Tale of Genji. On that basis, we can be sure that everything for the several billion years prior was simply micro-evolution. And complex novels do require intelligent design. I'm sure Mr Jerry will agree with me, he usually does.Nakashima_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, Jerry is applying a non-standard definition of macroevolution - namely that macroevolution only involves the evolution of "complex novel capacities". Nonetheless, I believe your point still stands regardless as highly complex genetical information may not be assumed to be necessary, a priori. A well documented case would be the relatively short term evolution of novel metabolic pathways in bacteria that degrade nylon. But, at this stage Jerry has not explained what qualifies as "complex". The degradation involves 3 new enzymes, nonetheless, and my understanding is that ID claims novel, functional enzymes cannot be generated naturally.paulmc_{December 17, 2009
December
12
Dec
17
17
2009
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply