|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Typical ID response to rebuttals? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ben,
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. It matters not a jot, an IC system evolved (the expression regulation & associated enzyme, specifically). But for the record, the bacteria that evolved a new enzyme, expression regulator, & permease, would quite obviously outcompete it's lacking contemporaries in the substrate that the enzyme works on. How could it not result in differential reproductive success when it has so much more food to eat than it's petri dish competitors? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey Mark.
In running down some of the points of the Hall experiment I also ran across this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5
Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). And this last part (in yellow for emphasis) caught my eye as another multipart system. The citation is:
Lee, S. G., B. D. Yoon, et al. (1998) "Isolation of a novel pentachlorophenol-degrading bacterium, Pseudomonas sp. Bu34." Journal of Applied Microbiology 85: 1-8. {PubMed} The abstract at PubMed did not discuss the "multienzyme metabolic pathway" so I could not determine if this could be another evolved IC system. Any idea from your end? Thanks. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
And this last part (in yellow for emphasis) caught my eye as another multipart system. We need to be careful in our claims here, a multipart system isn't necessarily an IC system. For example, in the Hall '82 experiment, the evolution of a permease & enzyme is a multipart system but not necessarily an IC one. If you remove the permease, the enzyme continues to function as before. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Oh I know, that's why I wanted to find out more.
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Mark,
It matters not a jot, an IC system evolved (the expression regulation & associated enzyme, specifically). It matters. The system evolved in a situation where: - the nutrient was not in limited supply- the organism had another means for maintaining it's own food supply - genes were available such that the decrease in fitness in the loss of one gene was offset by the increase in fitness of the new gene created by mutation In my mind, these are important limitations. If any of these were not true, the system would not have evolved in this experiment. Thus, this experiment shows that such a system can evolve... under these circumstances. It leaves open the question of whether or not an IC system can evolve in other circumstances.
would quite obviously outcompete it's lacking contemporaries in the substrate that the enzyme works on. How could it not result in differential reproductive success when it has so much more food to eat than it's petri dish competitors? As RAZD pointed out, I was under the impression that competition didn't include just peers, but also "squatters"--in this example, organisms that were ALREADY using lactose to survive. But thinking more, it seems that evolution must be working on where organisms are venturing into places where food supply is available, not where it's completely consumed. This includes venturing into "niches" where there are no organisms using the "food supply and "niches" where existing organisms are not using all of the "food" supply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
RAZD,
Mark addressed the point in his post that the system in the Hall paper is in fact not IC. He simply explained why that is:
For example, in the Hall '82 experiment, the evolution of a permease & enzyme is a multipart system but not necessarily an IC one. If you remove the permease, the enzyme continues to function as before. This is exactly how I was thinking (no, really!). In that case, I don't think the article you're quoting, and the conclusions you're making in post 7 are right. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ben,
In my mind, these are important limitations. If any of these were not true, the system would not have evolved in this experiment. Thus, this experiment shows that such a system can evolve... under these circumstances. Er, yes. So what? It shows IC can evolve, job done. Why can't other IC systems evolve under different circumstances?
- the nutrient was not in limited supply Should it have been in order for you to accept the evolution of IC? Why would it be any different if it were in short supply?
the organism had another means for maintaining it's own food supply And that disqualifies this example of the evolution of IC how, exactly?
genes were available such that the decrease in fitness in the loss of one gene was offset by the increase in fitness of the new gene created by mutation A non-sequitur. What genes existed & didn't is irrelevant, except to note that an IC exists that previously didn't. Again, & this disqualifies this example of the evolution of IC how, exactly? All in all a fairly weak & disingenuous list of objections.
It leaves open the question of whether or not an IC system can evolve in other circumstances. Oh, I see, you won't rest until every known example of IC has been shown to evolve in a lab? IC can evolve, there is no particular reason to think that it can't evolve elsewhere. Ye Olde Creationists mantra that IC cannot evolve is demonstrably false. Job done. MArk There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ben,
Mark addressed the point in his post that the system in the Hall paper is in fact not IC. Yes it is. If you remove the enzyme the permease & regulator is functionless. BUT, if you remove the permease the enzyme & regulator still work. The former is IC, the latter isn't. It just depends what you remove from the system. The point I was making to RAZD was that just because any given system is complex (uses more than one part), it isn't necessarily irreducibly complex. The fact remains that IC has evolved in Hall's experiment. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Dbl post
This message has been edited by mark24, 09-28-2005 01:07 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Mark,
OK, this is why it was taking me time to post; after reading Behe's "definition" of IC, I couldn't figure out if ALL sequences of removal had to lead to a nonfunctional organism, or if simply one sequence of removal had to lead to a nonfunctional organism.
"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia It's all about how you read "any". Does "any" mean "any one at all" or does "any" mean "any single one".
an·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)
Any Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comadj. One, some, every, or all without specification: Take any book you want. Are there any messages for me? Any child would love that. Give me any food you don't want. I don't know; I haven't read any Behe. But it seems it to me it has to be "any" meaning "any one at all." That means, it's irreducibly complex ONLY if, for all "parts", you remove it and the system fails. Otherwise, it's just too freaking easy to falsify. Oh, plus I just ripped this to wikipedia (I'm really loathe to go more in depth into Behe's papers / books than a wikipedia entry!), and it says:
Irreducible complexity asserts that, in order for any of the components of the system to function, all components of the system must have been present I think this goes with how I've been conceptualizing IC. I also think that Hill's experiment does NOT fit this. There are SOME components of the system that CAN operate WITHOUT all other components being present. Please enlighten me if I'm not getting this right. Thanks for your responses thusfar!! Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
One problem is that "part" is not well-defined. At the level of proteins the favourite ID example of the bacterial flagellum is not IC - and Behe doesn't define the "parts" of a flagellum at that level. So a part could itself be a system (which need not be IC).
That said, can you say how the Hall experiment does not fit Behe's definition of IC ?C
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
mark,
I'm not saying that these things "disqualify" it as an example evolution. What I'm saying is that "evolution" is a broad word covering many many scenarios. Evolution of this system (I'm avoiding calling it IC given the other subthread we're discussing here) has been shown to develop in ONE of those scenarios under the "evolution" umbrella; that doesn't mean we've shown it do develop in ALL scenarios under the "evolution" umbrella.
Why can't other IC systems evolve under different circumstances? There has to be justification to jump from this specific scenario to ALL scenarios, and that justification simply hasn't been given. Generalization from one to many is not the DEFAULT reasoning. The default reasoning is that what you see is what you got. It is the job of the author of the paper that RAZD gave to argue that this specific case can be argued to envelop ALL cases of what we call "evolution."
- the nutrient was not in limited supply
Should it have been in order for you to accept the evolution of IC? Why would it be any different if it were in short supply? If the nutrient was in short supply, the organism may not ever have time to evolve an IC system. It may be "possible" logically, but improbable. The possibility of extinction was eliminated in this scenario. If that's the only "realistic" case without such an abundant supply of nutrient, then "evolving IC" here was artificial, it didn't happen under natural selection.
the organism had another means for maintaining it's own food supply
And that disqualifies this example of the evolution of IC how, exactly? I don't know why my point isn't getting across. It doesn't DISQUALIFY it, but it has to be QUALIFIED. If there is no other food supply, the damn organism would die before it ever evolved this "IC" system. It would starve. Dead. Is there a reason to think the organism could evolve the ability to metabolize lactose while having no food to eat? No argument was made, and it's not obvious. Without argument, it needs to be qualified. And it's not. So "IC" metabolic system has been shown to evolve in the case where there's a secondary metabolic system in place. Or, more generally, "IC" was able to evolve in the case where the organism did NOT initially depend on the system to survive. That seems like an important, and valid, qualification to me.
genes were available such that the decrease in fitness in the loss of one gene was offset by the increase in fitness of the new gene created by mutation IF at ANY time in the history of the world, an organism had DNA, and all DNA was coding, and some of the DNA was mutated, then some function is lost. This experiment didn't CARE whether any other functionality was lost; there was no threat to the bacteria's life. This experiment FAILED to see whether "IC" would develop in the case where loss of function of a mutated gene occurred. That seems like an important qualification to me. Basically "IC" has been shown to evolve in the case where the organism LOSES NO FUNCTIONALITY from the development of the "IC" system. It has NOT been shown to occur when the organism loses functionality due to genetic mutations necessary to create the IC system. Again, I'm not saying it invalidates things, but it definitely qualifies the findings. "IC" has NOT been shown for ALL evolutionary scenarios. So simply making statments, unqualified, that "IC" can evolve (which suggests no restriction in the scenarios that it can evolve in) is at the very least, very misleading. And if there are qualifications, then it IS still possible that there are existing "IC" that came to be in situations that we have NOT shown "IC" systems can evolve in, and for those system the question would therefore still be wide open.
there is no particular reason to think that it can't evolve elsewhere. That's just not how it works. There has to be explicit argumentatation about WHY you can generalize from a specific case to a broader range of cases. It isn't a "default" that you can just hang your hat on. And I haven't seen the articles in the website that RAZD quoted, or from RAZD either. So, speaking scientifically, I think it's WRONG to make the generalization. If the arguments are presented, then I can actually read them and evaluate them, and see if that's an agreeable point. Just seemed like a very careless point in the original website, and that made me very uncomfortable with the general statements being made. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
PaulK,
I completely agree that "part" is silly. Here, it seems we're defining "part" as a gene.
mark24 in post 18 writes: (my emphasis) For example, in the Hall '82 experiment, the evolution of a permease & enzyme is a multipart system but not necessarily an IC one. If you remove the permease, the enzyme continues to function as before. So there is ONE way to remove a "part" and the system still functions. Contrast that with a statement about IC in Wikipedia:
Irreducible complexity asserts that, in order for any of the components of the system to function, all components of the system must have been present (again, my emphasis) Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia In Hall's experiment, there exists a component of the system that functions without all components of the system being present. That goes directly against the view of IC that is on wikipedia, for better or for worse. And that's been my impression of what IC is. Is that clear? I hope so... Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ben,
Given that Behe actually quotes the flagellum (as Paul points out) as an IC structure, that can have parts removed without destroying function, I would say he's actually as loose as I'm being with his definition. If the flagellum is an IC structure, then so is Hall's permease, enzyme, & regulator. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
mark,
Fair enough. Thanks for your replies. Ben
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024