|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Typical ID response to rebuttals? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Admittedly I haven't studied ID claims and the responses to them in all too great detail as yet. I do see references quite often to how, for example, many of Behe's initial examples of Irreducible Complexity, "have since been explained via random mutation and natural selection". I presume the theories of Dembski have been addressed in similar ways as well.
I was wondering how the proposed rebuttals have been handled by these two, and whether there is a general pattern. Do they in general DISMISS the rebuttals, and insist that their initial examples or theories remain valid because something was misunderstood? Or maybe they refine their argumentation to illustrate that the "misunderstandings" were partly their fault, and argue that a better explanation of the same examples refutes the initial criticism? Or do they, maybe reluctantly, admit that the criticism is entirely valid, and as a response come up with OTHER examples/theories to replace the rebutted ones? I guess the type of reaction can tell quite a bit about underlying motivations. Was the DATA more important in the ideas they developed, or the PARADIGM they possibly started from and tried to hold up via data collected especially for that purpose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
any admin care to take a look?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are several examples of refutations and counter refutations and counter-counter refutations in the literature
You can read some of them here:Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch by Richard Wein Not a Free Lunch There is also:The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" by Kenneth R. Miller http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html More specifically there is the "acid test" -- about a specific IC system that was observed evolving. This of course refutes the proposal that IC must be designed. {edit}http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html but it doesn't seem to be working. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html {/edit} This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 10:55 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think we already know the answere to this one. "It's true 'cause I believe it is and the data will have to conform to the belief or else the data is (are) automatically refuted." I asksed a similar (and I have to addmit, less elegant question) myself a day or two ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Here's a cache of your last link:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I've saved a copy of it now so I can reference it if need be.
It also let me find the new webpage for the articlehttp://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html and I have updated my bookmark Note that this specific example doesn't refute the concept of IC, it invalidates it as a scientific concept: an IC system was shown to evolve, therefore there is not only no reason to expect any other IC system to be different, there is no need to. If Behe were {honest\scientific} he would accept that and move on. This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*24*2005 11:42 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1418 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
Has this article been discussed here before? I read over the webpage at the link, as well as the 2 pages of the book... I think it would be worthwhile to discuss. Do you know if it's been done? If not, I'm not sure this thread is the most appropriate place, what do you think? Thanks.Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It has been raised several times before, but discussed in terms related to this thread, the rebutals and refutations of rebutals, no, not that I am aware of.
I do feel that Ken Miller seems to belabor some points and take others as fully demonstrated when he could provide a little more detail, and that he repeats himself when he could be much more concise, but that could just be me (and I never do that ). To me the point is that an IC was observed to evolve (whether naturally or under the {intentional\influence\cause} of an experiment is not relevant). Especially as it did not re-evolve the previous IC system but a new one. What's your take? This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 11:01 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1418 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
I have really big doubts about the following things:
- the validity of extending these lab results to true evolution (mutation and NATURAL selection). - That the system truly fits "IC" to start with. (want to ignore this quesiton for now) But first, I have to get some things clarified, which I couldn't understand from the links you wrote:
How did these bacteria survive with no way to metabolize lactose? What did the "artificial inducer IPTG" actually do? Was there any actual "competition" going on? One of the most troubling quotes was
All that Hall did was to use that inducer to set up growth conditions that would ensure that the mutants, if they appeared, could survive to be recovered and analyzed. In short, he screened for mutants, he didn't produce them as Behe implies How can we say this is "natural selection" in any way, shape or form? Seems to me artificially allowing mutants to survive. Let's start there. As I learn more about the tests, I can really drill down specific complaints. For the moment, I have to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
How can we say this is "natural selection" in any way, shape or form? Seems to me artificially allowing mutants to survive. If the ID proponents are going to ask for experimental support and then suggest that it is invalid because it is a "non-natural" experiment they will look more than a bit disengenuous. The point is: a claim was made that such systems (IC) can not evolve throught mutation and selection. It doesn't matter in this context, based on the logic behind the suggestion about IC systems, where the selective pressure comes from . If through evolutionary processes (mutation and selection) an IC system can arise the basic concept of IC as a refutation of evolutionary theory is blown out of the water. If you are actually suggesting that the IC concept as an attack on evolutionary theory is in any way affected by the source of the selection I would love to see your logic for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1418 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
If you are actually suggesting that the IC concept as an attack on evolutionary theory is in any way affected by the source of the selection I would love to see your logic for that. "IC" isn't saying that the system couldn't be built through a bunch of mutations. It's saying the system couldn't be built through a bunch of mutations while being functional. Why is the "functional" part important? Because the organism needs the functionality to naturally surivive in a competetive environment. In other words, it's implicit within "IC" that the organism needs to survive on it's own functionality. "Built through a bunch of mutations" only is really meaningless. In this experiment, there seems to be artificial support for keeping the the organism alive. It directly undercuts the IC premise that if the organism didn't have a fully functioning system, it would die. It looks like they're artificially keeping an organism alive while they "piece together" (through mutation) a system underneath it. What good is that? AbE: The "irreducibly complex" title doesn't have to apply "in general"--it just has to apply in the EVOLUTION SCENARIO. That means "irreducibly complex" in the situation of random mutation and natural selection. If your artificial selection is too invasive and is not generalizable in any way to natural selection, then it's too artificial. Period. This message has been edited by Ben, Sunday, 2005/09/25 12:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How did these bacteria survive with no way to metabolize lactose? My understanding is that the environment provided marginal sustenance for the bacteria unless it adapted to consume lactose, which was abundant. This would be similar to the one where a bacteria evolves to use nylon as a nutritional source (or oil or toxic waste ...)
What did the "artificial inducer IPTG" actually do? Promote mutations, according to the study.
Was there any actual "competition" going on? There was death of non-adaptive organisms, change in adaptive organisms, followed by the next generation. Competition is not necessary between individuals in survival situations for there to be evolutionary processes involved.
the validity of extending these lab results to true evolution (mutation and NATURAL selection). This could be claimed of every single experiment. Did {mutation\selection} evolution occur (was there change in alleles over time)? Yes. Did this evolution allow the bacteria to consume lactose? Yes. Was this specific mutation caused directly by IPTG? No, according to the study. Would this {study\result} be repeated without IPTG? That is the test of science eh? I'd say probably, given sufficient time. Of course this is where Behe has an opportunity to do real science and invalidate the study.
That the system truly fits "IC" to start with. (want to ignore this quesiton for now) The study was not originally intended to generate an IC system, it is Ken Miller's observation of it that puts it in this position. BUT, according to the definition established by Behe, that removal of any one part causes the whole to fail, it is an IC system as it relies on the interaction of three parts working together.
Let's start there. As I learn more about the tests, I can really drill down specific complaints. For the moment, I have to fill in the gaps of knowledge. .... the usual Ben SOP? ... by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1418 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
What did the "artificial inducer IPTG" actually do?
Promote mutations, according to the study. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, because the article says so explicitly:
quote: The next quote seems to me to indicate the role of the IPTG was to promote survival of baceria which normally would not survive on their own:
quote: This makes me question your comment that
My understanding is that the environment provided marginal sustenance for the bacteria unless it adapted to consume lactose, which was abundant. This would be similar to the one where a bacteria evolves to use nylon as a nutritional source (or oil or toxic waste ...) Can you find any information from the articles from which your understanding derived? I didn't see any when I read through both. I saw no specification at all either way, which is troubling me.
Was there any actual "competition" going on? There was death of non-adaptive organisms, change in adaptive organisms, followed by the next generation. Given what was said above, I don't see any death at all. I see all organisms being kept alive, but only barely. However, only adaptive organisms are able to proliferate. So, I really disagree with your characterization. Can you point out to me if I'm just misinterpreting the paper?
Competition is not necessary between individuals in survival situations for there to be evolutionary processes involved. That's true. But that definitely puts limitations on this experimental finding which don't seem to be stated by the book author or you in your original post. If the only evolutionary situation possible for this "IC" system to evolve is when there's no competition between situations, then that's a really important restriction to state.
.... the usual Ben SOP? ... Hey man I'm doing my best
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Part of the problem is that the article itself is not on-line (as far as I can determine). There are other references to this study in other papers that don't have anything to do with this IC controversy, and one on NCSE has this:
Excursion Chapter 1: The Origin Of Lifehttp://www.ncseweb.org/...nleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp The evolution of new enzymes and enzymatic functions by mutation and natural selection has been demonstrated in bacterial cultures (Hall, 1982; Mortlock, 1982). They seem to accept the argument that this involved mutation and natural selection. There is also this from another discussion forum: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319
To counter the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed, let's go back to the mid-1970s at the University of Rochester where Professor Barry Hall is conducting an experiment with special strains of E. coli[2]. A typical nutrient of bacteria is lactose, so Hall decided to remove the lacZ gene, responsible for the metabolization of the milk sugar substance. Hall placed one strain in an environment rich in lactose with little nutrient to survive on, and the other strain was placed in an environment with no lactose. The former recovered its ability to metabolize lactose over the course of a few days, with two mutations to preexisting genes along a different operon in the genome from the original. The first mutation produced a beta-galactosidase enzyme (34% homologous to its predecessor), tasked with breaking down lactose via a process of hydrolysis into the two monosaccharides glucose and galactose. This new enzyme was dubbed the ebg, or evolved b-galactosidase enzyme. The second mutation altered the control region, or repressor protein (25% homologous), so that the enzyme may be expressed in the presence of glucose. The second strain displayed no such progress. Again, this source does not discuss IC either, but goes on to make some interesting points, one of which is related to the issue of {survival\mutation} here:
John Cairns, et al. (1988) demonstrated with E. coli that stress on an organism, created by a significant threat of survival, increases the rate of mutation. However, this should and does not make "good" or "bad" mutations any more or less likely to occur, you are merely increasing the frequency of mutations period. The disposition of mutations remain proportionate to the mutation rate. Just increased survival {threat\pressure} has been noticed to "turn up" the mutation rate on several bacterial organisms. Its as if the mutation rate is controlled by some factor having to do with the organisms health? This does seem to confirm my statement I also question how much difference there is between mine and Millers?:
... set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to {consume lactose} and
... the environment provided marginal sustenance for the bacteria unless it adapted to consume lactose, which was abundant. both say marginal survival without lactose?
The next quote seems to me to indicate the role of the IPTG was to promote survival of baceria which normally would not survive on their own: Looking up the growth rate of e. coli (the bacterium used) I found this abstract about another experiment:
Growth-rate recovery of Escherichia coli cultures carrying a multicopy plasmid, by engineering of the pentose-phosphate pathway.We constructed a high-copy number plasmid carrying the gene for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, zwf, under the control of an inducible trc promoter (pTRzwf04 plasmid). By transforming a wild-type strain and inducing with IPTG, it was possible to recover growth-rate from 0.46 h(-1) (uninduced) to 0.64 h(-1) (induced). The same transformation in an Escherichia coli zwf(-), allows a growth-rate recovery from 0.43 h(-1) (uninduced) to 0.62 h(-1) (induced). Looks like they used IPTG to induce faster population growth (by cell division) from ~45% more/hr to ~63% more/hr. This would of course speed up the experiment, but I would think it would also add extra stress to the organism to gather sufficient resources in a shorter time.
I don't see any death at all. I could be wrong, but my experience (testing e. coli contamination) is that there is normally a portion of cells that die unless specific precautions are taken to reduce that during normal testing of water for contamination. Apparently all the ones in the other sample died. But more than that, there was no measure of dead cells mentioned so it is hard to quantify, nor does it say there was none. If they expected cell death it would not be a novel factor, but if they didn't expect it then there should be some comment about that other sample eh? E coli is a well known bacteria and does not form spores when threatened with individual cell death. It usually survives inside intestinal tracts and has lowered survivability at normal temperatures (hence is not widely spread in the environment and thus makes a good marker for fecal pollution, albeit source can be cows as well as people).
organisms being kept alive, but only barely. But in order for the mutations to be expressed they have to reproduce, multiply, and if the population as a whole is barely able to keep at the same levels but show change over time there has to be {loss\old} as well as {gain\new}.
But that definitely puts limitations on this experimental finding which don't seem to be stated by the book author or you in your original post. If the only evolutionary situation possible for this "IC" system to evolve is when there's no competition between situations, then that's a really important restriction to state I'm not sure I follow your point. Perhaps we need to define or evaluate your use of "competition" in this matter? Evolution by mutation and {survival\selection to reproduce} is all that is necessary. Competition for {most limiting} resources to {survive\reproduce} would occur but I see that more as first come first served rather than kill for it, outrun etc, competition. Perhaps competition has connotations that blur the picture? edited format, one typo This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 05:22 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024