Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 95 (56784)
09-21-2003 12:38 PM


I just got cable and immediately started watching science channels to wash the year and a half of FOX only mind programming out of my head (that was the only channel we could get in with our antenna).
The first thing I encountered was a program on THE science channel, called gene hunters. This specific episode was on caulerpa taxifolia x mediteranean.
Maybe I missed earlier threads on this topic, and I apologize if i did, because I'm going to raise the issue here.
ID theorists seem to come in two sorts, the kind that realize their only real hope is to limit their theory to abiogenesis, and those that are trying to replace evolutionary theory. The latter are clearly in the majority, and to them I wish to give them a little poison plant to chew on...
http://www.science-writer.co.uk/...19_years/2002/winner.html
(Synopsis for those who don't want to read the article: Caulerpa Taxifolia is a common Caribean and Indo-Pacific plant. It was sent to Europe for use in Aquariums. In an aquarium in Monaco (unknown to everyone) a mutation occured in a male plant. Accidentally released into the wild while flushing tanks it was discovered to have begun growing off the south of France. France decided not to eradicate it as CT would normally have died off under Mediteranean conditions. But the mutation allowed it not only to survive, but to thrive and it is now threatening ecological disaster worldwide).
Here's the deal. Evolutionary theory seems to have gotten a pretty humongous piece of contemporary evidence for random genetic mutation and natural selection leading to speciation with this event.
To date, IDists make claims about how random genetic mutation is always bad for the changee. But in this case it was successful in the exact manner evolutionary theory describes. A plant had a mutation occur that was essentially neutral where it was currently living (the aquarium), but then entered a new environment in which that mutation was perfect for its survival. It is now growing to push out less capable species (which in this case is unfortunately most of the flora and fauna in the Med).
The way this new species was tracked and identified, including the source of the original mutated plant, gives even further credit to genetics as a way of understanding life and changes in life.
I am wondering what model ID theorists have, or could possibly come up with, for this plant that does not involve a lot of handwaving.
Since intelligent and design are their main driving components, it appears God set the DNA "clock" to go off in a particular CT plant right when it was in an aquarium and before getting accidentally dumped into the med, just so it could form an ecological disaster for current flora and fauna.
And I believe this works as a very powerful poison for ID as the mutation did occur in just one plant. If DNA is a program for each "kind" with instructions on how to mutate for an end goal, wouldn't the DNA program be running in all plants of that same kind? Did the rest of them hit "snooze" or something?
Perhaps the Caulerpa Taxifolia x mediteranean might provide some benefits after all, if it manages to kill off another noxious weed that is trying to take over the US.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-21-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2003 3:11 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 11 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2003 7:26 AM Silent H has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 95 (56792)
09-21-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-21-2003 12:38 PM


To date, IDists make claims about how random genetic mutation is always bad for the changee.
I haven't been able to figure out yet just hwat IDists do claim. You may be setting up a strawman here.
The little I have read of ID ideas is that some steps in the diversification of life can not happen through individual evolutionary steps and must have had some sort of "outside" intervention. I'm not sure there is more to it than that. Clearly some of the IDist otherwise accept an old earth and a full range of evolutionary change. What others want to say I'm not at all sure.
I don't think that the idea that all mutations are harmful is part of anything that could fairly be called ID. Can anyone clarify this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 12:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 4:37 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 95 (56800)
09-21-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
09-21-2003 3:11 PM


ned writes:
I don't think that the idea that all mutations are harmful is part of anything that could fairly be called ID. Can anyone clarify this?
Wells, Dembski, and Johnson make these claims quite vociferously. They of course are fighting against what they call "macroevolution." And they are leaders of the ID movement.
Read Wells' "Icons of Evolution" if you don't believe me. He has a whole chapter "debunking" the icon of mutations being anything other than debilitating (unless it is mere pigment related) for an organism.
Behe seems willing to admit evolution could be real, and his claims may only address abiogenesis. However, in that case the individual evolutionary steps would then have been programmed for later "release" inside the DNA.
This is why I mentioned the fact that it was a singular specimen which had the mutation. By chance it had not had the opportunity to reproduce, just to keep growing (this plant can "clone" itself when chopped). That means we can "know" that the mutation was not some species wide program within the DNA.
I suppose ID theorists like Behe can then say God plays an active but unseen role in pushing each individual organism to mutate. But what good would that theory be? And what does that say when God intentionally mutates an aquarium specimen which then moves on to wipe out so much mediteranean wildlife? What did they do to him?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2003 3:11 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2003 6:31 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 69 by truthlover, posted 10-08-2003 7:45 PM Silent H has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 95 (56811)
09-21-2003 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
09-21-2003 4:37 PM


I see, you are right.
The whole ID thing is so muddled it is hard to figure out what they are espousing. Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 4:37 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 95 (57089)
09-23-2003 1:47 AM


what I'd like to know is, was the total information in the genetic code increased and not just altered.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 2:00 AM Gemster has not replied
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 2:06 AM Gemster has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 95 (57094)
09-23-2003 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gemster
09-23-2003 1:47 AM


what I'd like to know is, was the total information in the genetic code increased and not just altered.
There's no information in genetic codes. The code doesn't code for information. It codes for proteins. So your question is kind of meaningless, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 1:47 AM Gemster has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 95 (57095)
09-23-2003 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gemster
09-23-2003 1:47 AM


gemster writes:
was the total information in the genetic code increased and not just altered.
It became a hardier species, capable of surviving in an environment it previously was incapable of surviving in. In fact, it is more adaptable to any environment, which is why it is now a worldwide threat (not just the mediteranean).
Personally I don't believe in such things as "total information" inside the genetic code (using the equivocation between "code" and code). But it would seem from the general statements regarding what constitutes "increasing information" in a system, this was certainly an increase.
Now what?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 1:47 AM Gemster has not replied

  
Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 95 (57125)
09-23-2003 4:58 AM


trivial pursuit
A quote
There's no information in genetic codes. The code doesn't code for information. It codes for proteins. So your question is kind of meaningless, isn't it?
Okay so a crazy bunch of proteins can make an eye without
any information?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 09-23-2003 7:04 AM Gemster has not replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2003 7:08 AM Gemster has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 95 (57151)
09-23-2003 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Gemster
09-23-2003 4:58 AM


Re: trivial pursuit
Okay so a crazy bunch of proteins can make an eye without any information?
I believe the point Crashfrog is trying to get across is best illustrated by analogy:
Suppose I'm making a cake, traditionally we'd talk about the information on how to make a cake being the recipe, yes? As written in one of Delia's fine books for example. But we wouldn't talk about the cake mix itself being information.
DNA is closer to a cake mix than it is to a recipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 4:58 AM Gemster has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 95 (57153)
09-23-2003 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Gemster
09-23-2003 4:58 AM


Okay so a crazy bunch of proteins can make an eye without
any information?
Yes, because eyes are made of protein, not information. Simple chemistry assembles them.
Does water need "information" to become a snowflake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 4:58 AM Gemster has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 95 (57160)
09-23-2003 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-21-2003 12:38 PM


lol... for anyone to argue that ALL mutations are wrong would be silliness. For all generalisations there are exceptions.
I think the ID argument is that yes, although there are (relatively few and far between) beneficial mutations, new "protein families" do not form. For example, antibiotic resistance-many types of antibiotic resistance occur via the increased expression of genes which would otherwise breakdown the antibiotic before the antibiotic kills the bacteria.
Beneficial mutations such as sickle cell, haemoglobin C are all point mutations and as such do not create new "protein families".
I think they also argue that the rate of production of new alleles might not be enough to compensate the loss due to deaths.
I'd suspect that theistic evolutionists would argue the opposite. That yes, you begin with a "multi-purpose genome" or something along those lines, and this genome diverges as "non-random mutations" produce new genes, with these non-random mutations having a greater impact if the population is small, and thus evolution occuring faster.
I don't know. Don't quote me on this
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 12:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 3:51 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 95 (57241)
09-23-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by blitz77
09-23-2003 7:26 AM


blitz77 writes:
lol... for anyone to argue that ALL mutations are wrong would be silliness
That is correct. And all it takes is one beneficial mutation every once in a while that happens to be in an environment for which it is an advantage to keep evolution moving along.
Which is why ID theory must debunk the idea that ALL mutations (besides superficial changes) are beneficial. Otherwise evolution is possible.
You seem to be using Behe's ID arguments which as I said in my first post is NOT the one that this directly addresses (except for the "preprogrammed DNA" theory he mentions and you redefine as "theistic evolution").
Perhaps you can tell me where I am wrong (maybe I am), but a change in DNA that results in a change in organism integrity (ability to survive greater temperature ranges) requires the creation of a new "protein family" for that specific organism.
And if it is merely an alteration of a current protein family, how long until subsequent changes produce such a family?
Wells and Johnson certainly do not restrict their attacks to evolution at the protein level, and that is who I am primarily offering this plant to.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by blitz77, posted 09-23-2003 7:26 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 09-23-2003 4:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 95 (57246)
09-23-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
09-23-2003 3:51 PM


What is this "protein family" thing? It is something I haven't heard of before. What is it that distinguishes one family from another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 3:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2003 3:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 95 (57336)
09-23-2003 8:55 PM


come on dude
Yes, because eyes are made of protein, not information. Simple chemistry assembles them.
Evolutionists amuse me in that they always belitte the complex mechanisms in nature by calling them simple. I even saw an article
the other day that said that Darwins problem was that he didn't realise how simple the eye was.
biological chemistry far from being simple is mind boggling. The physiological chain of events that bridge feeling fear with perspiration could fill a couple of pages and then it has been claimed that for every link in the chain that is known, there are probably 100 that aren't
Does water need "information" to become a snowflake?
This bloke says it better than I can...........
. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibriuma lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.
Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 2 September 2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 1:56 AM Gemster has not replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2003 7:06 PM Gemster has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 15 of 95 (57402)
09-24-2003 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Gemster
09-23-2003 8:55 PM


Re: come on dude
The fact is, biology *does* work on normal chemical principles. There has never been an observed reaction in any biological system that doesn't. The particular reactions may be complex, but the basic principles are very simple. Complexity built out of simplicity is the hallmark of this very universe. The universe as a whole has a very small subset of rules encompasses all phenomina in existence.
The quote you cited is confused. Are they talking about thermodynamics or aren't they? I think the author deliberately blurs the issue, because humans *do* follow the laws of thermodynamics - both entropy and enthalpy. There is no issue with thermodynamics, so if you're defining complexity based on thermodynamics, you have a very odd definition
Yes, water forms into snowflakes because it's the reaction in the direction of entropy. So is the synthesis of RNA, the creation of proteins, etc - they follow entropy also. That is not the question.
The question is whether complex phenomina can come from incredibly simple rules. The answer is a resounding *YES*. Learn about strange attractors, flocking algorithms, Conway's Game of Life, etc. Graph the number of iterations of "Z=Z^2 + C where Z>2" on the complex plane, and look at what you get (Mandelbrot Set). The issue is complexity (completely and utterly unrelated to thermodynamic order - a cold block of coal is more thermodynamically ordered than you are) occurring from simple rules. A snowflake is one of a near infinite number of cases in the world. The rules governing how water changes states are quite simple. But the iterative interaction in the freezing process leads to the beautiful designs that we see.
I hate how creationists continually (deliberately?) misunderstand the concept of entropy.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Gemster, posted 09-23-2003 8:55 PM Gemster has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024