Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and the Human Immune System
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 16 of 26 (54827)
09-10-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
09-10-2003 9:09 AM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
M:
Hi judge,
I fail to see how either of those supports the idea that creationism finds hypermutation, natural selection, or allele frequencies or any other measure of genetic change over time more relevant than the theory of evolution.
Judge:
Neither do I :-)
I don't think I claimed this though. I did not claim it was "more relevant". In the first or second post it was stated..."Natural selection can't happen ..right"
I wanted to indicate that this is a strawman argument. Of course natural selection happens and to sugest that creationists or all creationists deny this is a strawman and counterproductive to discussion.
M:
The first paragraph suggesting that Darwin proposed a lower to higher scheme of evolution is unclear to me from my reading of the Origin of Species...though some of the terminology used by Darwin and his contemporaries would today be taken as offensive..much like the reaction you would probably get in New York City if you called an Afro American a negro. In any case, besides there being no support for degeneration I still fail to see how this supports your initial premise.
Judge:
My initial premise is that creationists ackowledge that natural selection occurs, and possibly more so at times than under conventional models.
M:
The second passage makes a false assertion, that artificial selection works in a way unrelated to natural selection...and then does not support the assertion...
Judge:
Perhaps the explanation is given in the body of the book?
M:
the rest goes on to point out that Darwin and most of his contemporaries did not know anything about the mechanisms of heredity i.e. genetics and then goes on to ignore the fact that there has been over 150 years of research since the publication of the Origin of Species where scientists did know about heredity.
Again, I fail to see how any of this supports creationism or the premise that creationist interpretation somehow relies on mutation or natural selection at all.
Judge:
The point is that the original argument contains a "strawman".Whether creationists rely on it I don't know but it is certainly ackowledged as occrring in their models...some at least.
It is not seen as being able (in conjunction with random muataion) to justify a beleif that microbes turned into men, thats all.
all the best
[This message has been edited by judge, 09-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2003 9:09 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rei, posted 09-10-2003 8:51 PM judge has replied
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2003 4:04 AM judge has replied

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


Message 17 of 26 (54832)
09-10-2003 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by judge
09-10-2003 7:42 PM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
Judge:
If you'll recall, not once did I say that no creationist believes in natural selection. I never once attempted to set up a straw man. You, however, by implying that I did, are setting up a straw man, and I don't appreciate it.
Regardless of your opinions, many of your ideological peers do not believe in it.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by judge, posted 09-10-2003 7:42 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by judge, posted 09-10-2003 11:11 PM Rei has replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 18 of 26 (54847)
09-10-2003 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rei
09-10-2003 8:51 PM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
Apologies you are correct.
I misinterpreted your statement.."natural selection can't work right?"
Please acept this apology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rei, posted 09-10-2003 8:51 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rei, posted 09-11-2003 1:34 PM judge has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 26 (54875)
09-11-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by judge
09-10-2003 7:42 PM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
Greetings judge,
quote:
I wanted to indicate that this is a strawman argument. Of course natural selection happens and to sugest that creationists or all creationists deny this is a strawman and counterproductive to discussion.
I would agree with you that to suggest "all creationists" deny the occurrence of natural selection would be a strawman. However, I have yet to see a common creationist model. I have seen creationists on this site deny that genetics is valid or that there is any significant change in allele frequency over time...but I would not be mean enough to torture you by asking you to read Syamsu's posts
quote:
My initial premise is that creationists ackowledge that natural selection occurs, and possibly more so at times than under conventional models.
I still don't see where the article you cite supports that.
quote:
The point is that the original argument contains a "strawman".Whether creationists rely on it I don't know but it is certainly ackowledged as occrring in their models...some at least.
It is not seen as being able (in conjunction with random muataion) to justify a beleif that microbes turned into men, thats all.
However, that would be a strawman argument if I get what you are implying (though I could be mistaken). If taken as abiogenesis, natural selection and the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. If you mean a microbe suddenly becoming a human (which I doubt you mean) that is a strawman as this is not expected by anybody..except an amazing number of creationists who post here and on other sites. If you mean that large scale changes during evolution cannot be explained my mutation and natural selection there is actually quite a lot of evidence. But before proceeding please indicate which you mean. I think you are referring to the third scenario I presented but want to be sure.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by judge, posted 09-10-2003 7:42 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by judge, posted 09-13-2003 9:01 AM Mammuthus has not replied

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


Message 20 of 26 (54953)
09-11-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by judge
09-10-2003 11:11 PM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
Of course
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by judge, posted 09-10-2003 11:11 PM judge has not replied

  
bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 26 (55033)
09-11-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
09-09-2003 6:51 PM


Re: Just-so stories...
quote:
To be honest, I don’t feel like debating the irreducible complexity of the immune system. It’s been done a zillion times already on the net.
It certainly has...and the IC of the immune system has been debunked just as many.
Though the focus of this discussion seems to be the adaptive immune system, many people seem to forget about innate immunity. IMO, just as important in host-pathogen co-evolution (actually, probably more so, since more organisms possess innate immune defenses than adaptive ones). The literature on Toll and Toll-like receptors is fascinating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-09-2003 6:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 22 of 26 (55130)
09-12-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rei
09-09-2003 7:38 PM


Re: Just-so stories...
quote:
Hey now, that's completely unfair. You presented the situation as if it were impossible. I quite clearly demonstrated a lineage in which an organism with an immune system that cannot do this mutation/selection of genes gets to one which can. Then you criticize me for a "grandiose tale"! No more childishness. If you wish to defend your argument, you need to explain what is unreasonable about the line of progression presented occurring.
I’m not acting childish, I’m just stating things exactly how I see it. In my ever so humble opinion you told a grandiose tale that was ludicrous beyond words I can express here. For starters, you 1) didn’t even come close to addressing my original challenge, 2) you provided no evidence to back your tale, and 3) you did not provide a mathematical explanation model to demonstrate how it can happen. I’m not expecting some elaborate 'proof' because I realize the time limits here, but at least *some* substance. Perhaps something like so-and so- study showed that such a step-wise process, given conditions x,y,z, might produce result a,b, or c, in a time frame of t.. I didn’t expect, if a cow gets a good running start, and if it leaps successfully, it could jump over the moonnow Fred, don’t you at least agree a cow can get a better jump if it has a running start?
quote:
And again, if your argument sums up to "there are other ways it coud have occurred than this", then you're actually helping my case.
And again? I *never offered* an alternative scenario, because I can clearly see the genetics and math, let alone information science, do not support one!
quote:
Do you acknowledge that any increase in the number of antibodies that the organism can produce increases its odds for survival? Do you acknowledge that it would be an advantage to increase the diversity in the population when it comes to the ability to resist diseases,
Yes. Do you acknowledge you have not provided any evidence or mathematical model to defend this claim? Do you acknowledge that in the very least a new beneficial mutation would be extremely rare? Do you acknowledge that even when one occurs there is still no better than 1 in 50 chance it will survive in the population, even given a high selective value of .1%? Do you acknowledge there is a speed limit on how soon such a mutation can fixate (related to pop frequency at time of mutation)? Given these facts, do you grant that your response was a just-so story? Since it is you making the grandiose claim, it is therefore your responsibility to produce some kind of mathematical explanation to defend your claim.
But let’s forget this initial task. Let’s assume this all happens! It doesn’t even get to the starting gate of my original challenge! How did the immune *program* itself evolve? When are you going to actually tackle this? Would you please describe how the whole antibody variable/constant region and hypermutation process that can pump out voluminous combinations of antibodies can evolve in a stepwise fashion?
The problem with evolution is that this immune system is just one of a hole host of problems too numerous to count that must be overcome for evolution to take a tadpole from 3 billion years ago and mold it into an intelligent, witty, charming, stud like me!
Evolution differs from a frog-to-prince fairytale only in the millions of years that were added to the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 7:38 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rei, posted 09-12-2003 8:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2003 4:29 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 09-13-2003 5:44 PM Fred Williams has not replied

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


Message 23 of 26 (55158)
09-12-2003 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Fred Williams
09-12-2003 5:22 PM


Re: Just-so stories...
1) didn't even come close to addressing my original challenge
Your original challenge was how such a mechanism could evolve. I presented a possible mechanism. It is impossible to show the *EXACT* mechanism that was used long ago, just like you can't show the design that Noah would have used in building the ark. Don't be ridiculous.
2) you provided no evidence to back your tail
Again, I presented *a possibility*. If you claim that a single element of that possibility that I proposed is impossible - say so, or concede the point. You go off on this incredulity about how such a system could evolve, and then when I show a mechanism, you *fail to challenge it* beyond asking me to prove that this *was the exact mechanism*.
you did not provide a mathematical explanation
Provide a mathematical explanation for a tree germinating from a seed.
It follows known chemical processes, certainly - but, unfortunately, mathematics is essentially possible in complex systems. Even the weather, which largely works in bulk operations (instead of fast, tiny reactions) becomes near impossible to predict after a few days.
quote:
something like "so-and-so- study showed that such a step-wise process, given condictions x,y,z....
You're asking for studies on precise chemical pathways which don't exist any more. You know very well that what you're asking for is impossible. We know how genes work. We know how mutations in genes work. We know that mutations in genes can alter proteins. We know that genes can be duplicated. That is all that is needed for what I suggested. We know that it is possible to have an immune system of the kind that we currently have. I'm sure you wouldn't argue the claim that it's possible to have an immune system which only has a preset number of antibodies that it can produce, but that such an organism with an immune system like that would have to be one that reproduces very quickly if it is to adapt at the same speed as bacteria. My argument doesn't require anything more complex than this.
So, in short, please answer what I've been trying to get you to answer the whole time: Name A Part That You're Claiming Is Impossible, And Explain Why. Argument from incredulity always ticks me off, it's like talking to a brick wall.
quote:
"if a cow gets a good running start, and if it leaps successfully, it could jump over the moon...now Fred, don't you at least agree a cow can get better jump if it has a running start?"...
And if I had asked you that, would the proper thing for you to do be:
a) Incredulity
b) Respond with something to the effect of "the amount of energy needed to move a 1,000kg mass over the moon is X joules, which would be more than all of the energy in the chemical bonds of a cow."
c) Any other argument similar to (b)
(here's a hint: the answer is either (b) or (c)).
quote:
And again? I *never offered* an alternative scenario
You don't get it. You're trying to claim that because there's no way to know the *specific* chemical pathways that were taken, than it's just hand-waving to suggest a possibility. But that's ludicrous; that's like, if you said "a person can't travel across the country in a week", and I said, "well, a person could get into a vehicle of some kind, and then either navigate it themselves or have someone else navigate it, and end up here in a week", and you got all incredulous by saying "You don't even know this person!". What I'm presenting is a possible method - now, please:
-- Either Discuss Why You Feel That The Method That I Proposed Couldn't Happen, Or Concede That It Could. --
quote:
Yes.
So, you are acknowledging those first two points? Good. Now where do you claim that the possibility becomes impossible?
quote:
Do you acknowledge you have not provided any evidence or mathematical model to defend this claim?
1) I have provided a model. I have not provided a mathematical model - because this is not a mathematics problem. How would you feel if I asked you to present a mathematical model for the process of writing an essay on George Washington?
2) I would love to be able to defend my claim, but you *haven't challenged a specific part of it yet*. That's what I'm trying to get you to do. And again, remember that the claim isn't that this is the specifics of how it happened - the claim is that this is a *possibility*. Refer back to the "person travelling cross-country" analogy.
quote:
Do you acknowledge that in the very least a beneficial mutation would be extremely rare?
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes. Do you acknowledge that there are about 5e30 prokaryotes on Earth? If we're dealing with a creature that is, say, 1000 times more massive than a simple bacteria, and assuming a ^2 reduction in population, that's still 5e24 of creatures the size that we're talking about here.
Also, do you acknowledge that evolutionists accept a period of several billion years of development? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that we're talking about 100 million years of time, and that a creature of this size reproduces 100 times per year. That's 5e34 generations for what I proposed to evolve. *However*, this is the population of *adults* involved - remember that for later.
quote:
Do you acknowledge that even when one occurs there is still no better than 1 in 50 chance it will survive in the population, even given a high selective value of .1%?
I don't really get that statement of yours. You cite a number for the "selective value" (?) that is one in a thousand, and then say 1 in 50. I assume you mean "survive until reproductive age". A stable population of daphnia (an example modern species of about the size we're discussing) produces about 1000 eggs that hatch. In a stable population, that means about a 1 in 1000 chance of surviving to maturity if all offspring are equally fit. However, this also introduces 1000 brand new trials - it's 1000 times as likely that a given beneficial adaptation will occur. In short, while each organism competing with its siblings reduces its chance of making it to adulthood, the fact that there are so many siblings increases the likelyhood of a successful adaptation by the same amount.
Do you accept the numbers? If not, which part do you challenge?
quote:
Do you acknowledge there is a speed limit on how soon such a mutation can fixate (related to the pop frequency at the time of mutation)?
"Fixate" according to the "pop frequency"? You're going to have to clarify yourself on that one. Perhaps you mean how quickly each trait can spread through the population as a whole? Well, thanks to sexual reproduction and the sharing of genes (another topic for debate, I'm sure, but out of scope of this one), the answer is "quite quickly". Since aquatic organisms have relatively little of a natural barrier to deal with, it would simply radiate outward. Given how quickly invasive species spread when *they* get to a habitat that they find easier to survive in than the native species, and thanks to oceanic conveyer belts which move quite quickly, I'd be surprised if it took more than a few decades to spread across all of the world's oceans - a blink of an eye by evolutionary standards.
Your disagreement with this? (as specific of complaints as possible, please)
quote:
Given these facts, do you grant that your response was a just-so story
Not at all. And I encourage you to respond to what I posed above.
quote:
How does the immune program itself evolve?
I just showed you how the immune system evolves. What do you mean by "program"? Each mutation is a change in the DNA. If you are defining the DNA to be a "program", then the answer is right in front of you - if the stages that I described happen, then the "program" is evolved.
quote:
Can you explain how the whole antivody variable/constant region and hypermutation process that can pump out voluminous combinations of antibodies can evolve in a stepwise fashion?
If you read what I wrote, I listed it in steps, and no step was any sort of a jump, and most steps could occur in paralell. Mutagens exist. Duplication of genes with alteration occurs. A copied, but altered mutagen starts affecting the general region of the DNA in lymphocytes which is responsible for immune activity. Instant advantage: While the antibodies produced don't change real-time, the population becomes more diverse in the realm of antibody production, without damaging genes that need to be more stable. The production of the mutagen becomes tied in with the level of antigens in its environment. Instant advantage: the mutation is done when it is needed the most. Good binding of the cell's antibody activates the genes for reproduction. Instant advantage: Effective lymphocytes reproduce more often. The mutagen becomes more targetted at modifying only specific parts of the gene that activates the production of antibodies, causing it to activate production of the protein from multiple, separated segments of the DNA. Instant advantage: like the modern system.
Now, can you explain why something along these lines *wouldn't* occur in 5e34 generations? I didn't count steps, but I'd imagine I listed around 5-10 steps - which means it has around 5e33 to 10e34 generations per step to make each one happen.
quote:
Evolution differs from a frog-to-prince fairytale only in the millions of years that were added to the story
I'll be the better person and not make an allusion to your invisible friend that lives in the sky, and simply comment on the fact that in the real-world case, the frog is breeding, and each of its offspring are slightly different from the last, moving into different niches, needing to adapt to those niches... and it's several hundred million years between amphibians and primates.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2003 5:22 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 24 of 26 (55227)
09-13-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
09-11-2003 4:04 AM


Re: Haven't forgotten the evil Dr Borger already?
M:
However, I have yet to see a common creationist model.
Judge:
Ha!...we can't even agree on whether one should be baptised or not.
It is some way off at the moment. but I believe it will come.
You were correct in that I meant the third option.
As for the evidence, I discount it without considering it as far as common descent is concerned.
This may sound funny, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Might as well admit it.
I find it fascinating to look at it...but I actually believe that Adam was not created mortal. I find it impossible to understand Jesus etc...etc...etc...unless this is the case.
I could be wrong but at the moment I tend to think not (hmmm.thats probably understating it a lot)
[This message has been edited by judge, 09-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2003 4:04 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 26 (55261)
09-13-2003 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Fred Williams
09-12-2003 5:22 PM


Just-so stories...
fred writes:
And again? I *never offered* an alternative scenario, because I can clearly see the genetics and math, let alone information science, do not support one!
To be honest fred, doesn't our current knowledge of math, genetics, and information "science" simply not support the current simplistic version of evolution. That is the abstract theory for which scientists admit is not fully fleshed out as far as mechanisms go?
I'm not sure how anyone gets anything out of mathematically modelling evolution when it is known that we don't have positive assessments of variables or rates of change within variables. All it seem we could test is whether our current knowledge of mechanisms is adequate. It's not, go figure.
Gould's theories have already suggested changes in rates, which alters any plausible mathematical models. I mean how do you calculate in exact numbers of radically changed environments in which change can occur? According to Gould, this would be a massive rate determining step. But we do not know exactly how many global catastrophic change events have occurred, much less regional catastrophic change events.
Then there is Margulis' theories. That really puts the kabosh on information theory saying anything, much less building true mathematical models. Or maybe I'm not up to speed. How many have included endosymbiosis in their formulations?
The best your calculations can do is say we don't know everything in detail yet. It does not offer direct criticism of the overall theory, which is very flexible, much less exclude it as an improbability.
And here's the rub, bub...
fred writes:
Evolution differs from a frog-to-prince fairytale only in the millions of years that were added to the story.
Wrong. It may still be a bit "mythic" in that some portions are known not to be completely accurate, but all the story's major elements are real and if improbable, certainly not impossible.
And if your assessment of evolution is the above, where lies creation theory, or IDC theory?
It would simply be a fairytale.
Where in math and information "science" does anything beyond natural mechanisms become plausible. You have ducked my post to you regarding this issue elsewhere, but I'll keep reminding you as long as you mention math and information "science" as some kind of weapon against evolution.
Much less probable to either profession, is what we see in the physical world getting put together by something wholly fabricated in someone's mind.
I can see chemicals, I can see changes in biochemical units. I don't see fairies, especially Huge fairies creating bodies out of pure information from some cloud filled fantasyland.
fred writes:
How did the immune *program* itself evolve?
What are the problems you see with our immune system, that prevent it from having evolved by a combination of genetic mutation and some form of endosymbiosis?
I actually see no hurdling blocks at all. It is a complex structure in its present form, but just as bacteria constantly adjust to their surroundings, including adjustments to prevent invasion/predation by other life forms, why would this capacity diminish as the simple prokaryote adapted into it's more complex lifestyle as a conglomerated eukaryote?
If anything the immune system "grew out of" bacterias learning how to handle living with other bacterias, and their products. How can our bodies handle so many biological situations, including new ones? Maybe because they are built upon a vast history of organisms which could handle many of the situations we are going to encounter, and the flexibility to try and meet most new forms of invasion/predation.
What is your explanation if this is not the most logical one?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2003 5:22 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 26 of 26 (55270)
09-13-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Fred Williams
09-12-2003 5:22 PM


Re: Just-so stories...
Fred Williams writes:
I must say, that was one grandiose tale! This is called a just-so story.
I'm not sure about the "just-so" label, but depending upon the facts available and the nature of the inquiry, a description of the sort originally provided by Rei is often precisely what is called for. Often the question is merely how something might have come about within an evolutionary framework, and your initial question ("How did such a complex program evolve?") did seem of just this variety. However, you go on to make clear that you were looking for something more:
In my ever so humble opinion you told a grandiose tale that was ludicrous beyond words I can express here. For starters, you 1) didn’t even come close to addressing my original challenge, 2) you provided no evidence to back your tale, and 3) you did not provide a mathematical explanation model to demonstrate how it can happen.
So it would seem that you weren't asking how the immune system might have come about through evolution, but something a little more detailed. I hope you find Rei's answer satisfying.
It is important to try to point out when a given scenario, whether it be evolutionary or Creation, is unlikely or even impossible. You usually employ thermodynamics, information theory and probability in such efforts, and you often cite them as if they were settled issues, but at this point in time your positions on these matters are all under active challenge, and in fact you've left hanging most threads in which you've participated on these topics. Just click on your name to see the list - a "Yes" in the right hand column indicates you have replies you haven't yet answered.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 09-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2003 5:22 PM Fred Williams 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