Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 16 of 23 (74355)
12-19-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
12-19-2003 5:23 PM


quote:
NO ONE has been able to show that mutations culled by NS could create a vision system. Nillson & Pilger did NOT use real genes or even computer generated copies of the genes involved. Behe shows how difficult it is and NO ONE has refuted or even rebutted him. Please by all means show that statement to be incorrect.
Key issue:
** Do you deny that random mutations can change structural morphometry?** (if not, visit the pigeons and dogs thread )
If you do, then you accept that Nilsson and Pelger is correct given their starting assumptions. Because, given their starting assumptions (1. A primitive light-sensing spot, 2. Advantageous mutations fixate into a population; you can contest these all you want later, but they're the premises), and allowing for minor structural morphometry changes at a tiny rate, an eye develops quite easily through gradualism.
Again: Do you accept the text within **'s? If so, you accept Nilsson and Pelger, given their assumptions.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 12-19-2003 5:23 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:02 PM Rei has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 23 (74362)
12-19-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
12-19-2003 5:23 PM


quote:
NO ONE has been able to show that mutations culled by NS could create a vision system. Nillson & Pilger did NOT use real genes or even computer generated copies of the genes involved. Behe shows how difficult it is and NO ONE has refuted or even rebutted him. Please by all means show that statement to be incorrect.
People have rebutted Behe, here is one example. A quote from that page: "When it comes to biochemical processes we are a bit pushed to find intermediates. Behe knows this. It is his trump card. That's why he's discussing biochemistry and not whole organisms where so many intermediates have been found." In other words, biochemical pathways don't fossilize and that is why it is difficult to find intermediates. We do see single celled organisms with a workable vision system (Euglenia) as well as simple visions systems (Planaria). In fact, in nature we see a wide assortment of simple to complex vision systems. What we don't have is a fossil record of biochemical pathways. What Nillson and Pilger put forth is a step by step pathway with increasing fitness or visual acuity. This process of improved fitness over time can be seen in the fossil record with respect to middle ear ossicles, for example.
Another quote from the site above: "Nonetheless the evolution of the proteins of vision from ancestral proteins previously engaged in other activities is no more extraordinary than that of the bones. Anyone prepared to accept that evolution has occurred and natural selection has been operating in the one case should feel able to accept that they also work for the other." That is, fossils quite obviously show a change in morphology over time, why should biochemistry not do the same? Show us how biochemistry in cells does not change even though morphology does and you might have a shot.
If you want more refutations and rebuttals of Behe's work, here are a few:
Jerry A. Coyne, Don Lindsay, just to name a few. Or you can go to this site for a large list of rebuttals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 12-19-2003 5:23 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:11 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 23 (75839)
12-30-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rei
12-19-2003 6:03 PM


Rei:
** Do you deny that random mutations can change structural morphometry?** (if not, visit the pigeons and dogs thread )
John Paul:
I visited that thread and saw nothing about RANDOM mutations doing anything. How do we know those mutations were random and not the product of the design reacting to environmental (or other) pressures?
Advantageous mutations- what is advantageous in one environment is not necessarilly advantageous in another. IOW there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time. Also there has NEVER been any observed data that shows "random" mutations can/ will accumulate in the way necessary to get one body part to continually increase in complexity. Then we still have the iussue of multi-cellularity.
That said if the information for a vision system was designed into the population, anything is possible. However that is not what we are teaching in the classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 12-19-2003 6:03 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by JonF, posted 12-30-2003 4:00 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 23 by Rei, posted 12-30-2003 6:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 23 (75841)
12-30-2003 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Loudmouth
12-19-2003 6:43 PM


Don Lindsay tells me that the eye could evolve in a "handful" of mutations. However he couldn't tell me where those mutations occured or what those mutations were. IOW, he, like all the alleged rebuttals, are nothing but "just-so" stories.
I have read most of the peer-reviewed literature on this topic (Behe's IC) and the evidence isn't there. No one knows how the mammalian vision system evolved. No one knows how blood-clotting evolved, or the cilia or any flagella- to name a few structures. Explanations are not to be confused with real evidence. If explanations counted for anything I would have gotten a 4.0 at every level of my education.
Just because we see various levels of vision systems does not mena they evolved from one another.
I may not be able to respond right away...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 12-19-2003 6:43 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 12-30-2003 2:40 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 12-30-2003 4:04 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 23 (75844)
12-30-2003 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Paul
12-30-2003 2:11 PM


Don Lindsay tells me that the eye could evolve in a "handful" of mutations. However he couldn't tell me where those mutations occured or what those mutations were. IOW, he, like all the alleged rebuttals, are nothing but "just-so" stories.
How are Behe's musings anything but just-so stories. That is all IC is, a just-so story. Saying that the flagella has always been exactly like it is today is a just-so story. The burden of evidence for IC syste still needs to be met by Behe, something he doesn't even want to search for it seems. If you take away the just-so stories out of Behe's theory you are left with nothing but a title page.
Maybe the question should be why does Behe focus on biological systems that do not fossilize when fossilized biological systems show a trend towards gradual evolution? Care to explain why the middle ear transitions between reptile and mammal are not perfect examples of an IC system coming about by gradual evolution? If we have examples of an IC system arising due to evolution in the fossil record, why should we assume ID with biochemical systems? These are questions that Behe will never answer with any amount of clarity, just reiteration of his pseudo-theory in the face of mounting counter-evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:11 PM John Paul has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 21 of 23 (75851)
12-30-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
12-30-2003 2:02 PM


How do we know those mutations were random and not the product of the design reacting to environmental (or other) pressures?
Because nobody has ever found a scrap of evidence that any mutation is "the product of the design reacting to environmental (or other) pressures", whereas all the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tests of mutations that have been run in the past 60 years have shown that they are random with regard to need. The Luria & Delbruck Fluctuation Test.
Also there has NEVER been any observed data that shows "random" mutations can/ will accumulate in the way necessary to get one body part to continually increase in complexity.
Nor has anybody predicted that evolution will increase in complexity, other than the trivial observation tht if everything starts out simple there's only one way to go.
That said if the information for a vision system was designed into the population, anything is possible.
Almost ... the only thing that's not posible is studying it using the tools of science.
However that is not what we are teaching in the classroom.
Yeah, we have this thing about restricting science classes to teching science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 23 (75852)
12-30-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Paul
12-30-2003 2:11 PM


No one knows how the mammalian vision system evolved. No one knows how blood-clotting evolved, or the cilia or any flagella- to name a few structures. Explanations are not to be confused with real evidence.
Actually, "just-so" stories are evidence ... for certain things. If one wishes to claim that a particular system could not have evolved, then a physically possible just-so story of how it could have evolved is indeed evidence ... evidence that the assertion of impossibility is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:11 PM John Paul has not replied

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


Message 23 of 23 (75871)
12-30-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
12-30-2003 2:02 PM


Ah, so now you're acknowledging that mutations can change structural morphometry (the only requirement, given the premises), but you're saying that they're not random. Ok. First off, I would like to ask why God felt the need to shove pigeon heads into their bodies, deform their chests, give them fuzzy feet or peacock-style tails, etc, if these things aren't random. Again, remeber: if there is *any* random mutation allowed, the eye will evolve, so *none* of these things can be based on random mutation.
Next, allow me to point out a relatively simple experiment: take a stock of E. coli that have a gene involved in the metabolism of lactose removed - for example, galactosidase. Put them in a lactose-only environment. What do we find? Sure enough, they evolve the ability to digest lactose. What do they evolve it from? Well, that depends. You can run the test a thousand times, and you won't get the same ebg (evolved beta galactosidase) to develop every time. Not only does a new galactosidase need to evolve, but also a new control region and genetic switch - and the pathway that it will occur varies. Thus, it is not directed, but is random within the constraints of the system (note that if you're saying that the "system" could not have evolved, your dispute is with abiogenesis, not evolution).
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2003 2:02 PM John Paul 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