Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
368 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1 (3 members, 365 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,616 Year: 20,652/19,786 Month: 1,049/2,023 Week: 557/392 Day: 101/72 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 46 of 207 (141625)
09-11-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
09-11-2004 4:58 PM


LUCA
I find it surprising that we think life only arose once. I can understand that only one lineage made it so there is a LUCA. However, it might very well not be also the original form of life but just the furtherest back of the surviving line.

I'd find it cool if we could find any trace of a separate line. I certainly can't see that that is a big deal otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 4:58 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 5:41 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31643
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 47 of 207 (141629)
09-11-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
09-11-2004 5:12 PM


Re: LUCA
I would go so far as to say that it is an almost certainty that we will find out that life started many times, oth here and on other worlds.

The chemistry seems so straight forward and the likelyhood of creating life so probable that I find it hard to believe it happened only once. My best guess is that life is probably been created as we speak but that unless it happenes to begin where there is an open niche it would simply be short term protein, dinner for whoever was already occupying the niche.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 5:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 48 of 207 (141719)
09-12-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
09-11-2004 12:44 PM


Re: LUCA ?
I’m going to try and beat ID-man to the punch here, as he either has the wrong end of the stick (at best), or hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about (at worst).

There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree – if you analyse the sequences of a number of primitive genes for example you would be presented with a LUCA that had more biochemical functions than any existing prokaryote.

Here is a very good (4 year old) review of the ideas behind it

If you don’t have access to the full text then here is a pubmed central article (that I haven’t read in full) which is written by one of the main proponents of the theory about the origin of cells.

How this helps the ID movement I don’t know!

This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-12-2004 09:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 12:44 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2004 12:28 PM Ooook! has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2004 9:47 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4136 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 207 (141751)
09-12-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ooook!
09-12-2004 6:30 AM


There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree

I am totally in agreement with you on this. Evidence seems to indicate more of a hedge of life rather than a tree of life.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ooook!, posted 09-12-2004 6:30 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 50 of 207 (141987)
09-13-2004 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:16 AM



ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

1-3 are unsupported assumptions, and the conclusion in 4 is
simply a opinion based upon those unsupported assumptions.

If 4 IS correct then it necessitates a creation event at some
point in the past (even if that was not on Earth). It also means
that no creator can exist who wasn't him/her/itself designed.

If an non-designed creator can exist then 1 & 3 MUST be false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:16 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:50 AM Peter has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3349 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 207 (141998)
09-13-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ooook!
09-12-2004 6:30 AM


Re: LUCA ?
It would help *if anyone* ever figured out what I was saying!

I guess I am ready for your mill of o's,

The clue could be found in Gould's failure to follow Bateson INTO THE ORGANISM where the implication of disjunction was significant and determining (as to a wave or flucutation rather than a simple code for rate process relativity).

if you SEE ALL CURRENT EVO BIO as using a transilient environment that was materially when not particularly a divergence behaviorally. I will pick all this up on the gong show thread if one is really pressed to find the continuity where currenlty Gould threaded Galton orthoganilly in a pigeon without a hole. Sorry to be cryptic and name dropping but just remind me of my KNOWLEDGE of the diff specifically between the chemical mutation of R.paluestris and Pipens where I will attempt to open up more time to talk about this as a quasi-closed system you might if you were "mad" enough to keep from being but the open living system. There is this world of difference between the chance speciation of a frog calling its toxicity and the knowledge that a human can divide amphibians discretely & genetically this way. We tend to have it currently taught that Fisher gained the continuity particulate wise and that these data divisions specify our taxonomic knon seperations maintained differently by baraminologists and cladists say but we dont (unless we tried to USE macrothermodyanmics) have a way to say that the different subspecific geographic distribtutions vicariances ARE the pariculate differences NOT THE genome letter divisions Gould would still be teaching were he alive to this way laid day of Provine's childhood chicken difference of inbreeding in the field (for any Mendel) vs brood chamber and hen house. I know that the two frogs I mentioned are subjectively different and THIS is why we tend to think of ONE life but I DONT KNOW in the same way, just becuase molecular phylogenies can be restructed that they are of the same degree UNLESS I TAKE IT THAT the continuity IS ONLY of the FISHER PARTICULATE GRADE. IT IS NOT on my view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ooook!, posted 09-12-2004 6:30 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 207 (142012)
09-13-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
09-11-2004 3:49 PM


quote:
PaulK:
Yet obviously ID does NOT accept universal common descent since declaring a belief in it is incompatible with membership of the ID movement.

Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website.

quote:

[Eugenie]Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? (emphasis added)

OK let's see PaulK spin that...


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:49 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 10:54 AM ID man has responded
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:36 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 207 (142014)
09-13-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peter
09-13-2004 7:36 AM


quote:
ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Peter:
1-3 are unsupported assumptions, and the conclusion in 4 is
simply a opinion based upon those unsupported assumptions.


The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 09-13-2004 7:36 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 6:39 PM ID man has responded
 Message 68 by Peter, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 54 of 207 (142017)
09-13-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:47 AM


There's no need to spin it.

There are plenty of possible explanations, not least the fact that Behe's departure would be very damaging. And the ID movement is all about politics, PR and spin.

Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM PaulK has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 207 (142029)
09-13-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
09-13-2004 10:54 AM


quote:
PaulK:
There's no need to spin it.

So you admit you are wrong?

quote:
PaulK:
There are plenty of possible explanations, not least the fact that Behe's departure would be very damaging.

Let us hear some of those expalnations and please support them.

quote:
PaulK:
And the ID movement is all about politics, PR and spin.

The reality is that ID is all about finding out the reality to our existence. And then understanding that reality. Period.

quote:
PaulK:
Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 10:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM ID man has responded
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2004 5:26 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 56 of 207 (142037)
09-13-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ID man
09-13-2004 11:25 AM


No, I don't admit that I am wrong. Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong. As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.

And I've got to admit that I laughed at your description of ID. No, ID is all about influencing the American school curriculum. Want to explain why the ID movement won't even take a stand on the age of the Earth ?

And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2004 11:41 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:41 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 11:21 AM PaulK has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3349 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 207 (142040)
09-13-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-13-2004 11:36 AM


Maybe its because THE FORM, is not extinct. When Gould looked at Romer's T-Rex he ^thought^ "Ohhhh now I get it, it is no longer-it was, it is NOW extinct". When I saw the drawing in my book, I IN ADDITION saw in the corner of the page, at the feet of the RECONSTRUCTION, a colored (rex was all bones in B&W) turtle and some other herp and I ^thought^ 'well at least something survived!'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4136 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 207 (142124)
09-13-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ID man
09-13-2004 11:25 AM


Paul said...
Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

To which you said...
In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation

Do I really need to point out that you said that YOU disagree with Behe on common descent? That then places YOU in the creationist camp then, no? And you claimed to be ID so some within ID are creationists, yes?

Can't wait to see how you spin that one.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18985
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 59 of 207 (142130)
09-13-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:47 AM


ID man writes:

Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website.

As stated a couple times already, the ID movement, including Dr. Behe, would like very much to distance itself from the largely discredited Creationist movement. It would prefer to identify itself as an independent movement unrelated to traditional Creationism. But when you look behind the curtain, there are all the usual players, like Philip E. Johnson and so forth. You quote Dr. Behe saying, "that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent," as if denial of common descent were the definition of Creationism. IDists shout "I am not a Creationist" for the same reason racists shout "I am not a racist", because they don't want to be associated with a discredited concept.

When you look under the hood of ID it has many similarities to the Scientific Creationism effort, where Creationists promoted the Genesis account of creation with all mention of God removed. ID just says that some unknown intelligence created and guided the evolution of life on earth. If this intelligence wasn't God then it was an alien race, which just pushes the origins question off to another planet. Ultimately you still have to answer the question of how the first life arose, and if your answer is that it didn't arise naturally, then your answer is still God. And that's why ID is still Creationism.

There are good reasons why traditional Creationists like Philip E. Johnson are involved in the ID movement. They know that traditional Creationism has already lost the battle, so they're looking for other alternatives like ID. But they want to take great care that ID doesn't deviate too far from traditional Christian beliefs. They know that evangelicals would not accept getting ID into schools only to find it meant denying Genesis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM Percy has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 207 (142155)
09-13-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:50 AM


quote:
The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency.

Your statement is too general, given the observations. It should be "Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agent THAT IS PART OF THE NATURAL REALM." Therefore, life had to originate naturally somewhere, and this rules out the possibility that life can only arise through an intelligent agent. This rules out God as the designer which is something the ID movement is against because they are creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:50 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:55 AM Loudmouth has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019